(Revised) R v Gurlu - [2022] VSC 820

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0136

Between:
THE KING
-and-
EMRE GURLU	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	12 December 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 December 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Gurlu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 820 First revision: 25 January 2023

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Intentionally causing injury — Manslaughter — At gathering, accused without warning grabbed ND, held knife to his face and then cut his cheek — Shortly thereafter, while IS repeatedly punched LH, accused stabbed LH twice to chest with knife — Accused, IS and others left scene without attempting to assist LH or call emergency services — LH died from stab wounds — Accused showered and changed clothes — Accused later apologised to ND about incident — Premises at which assault and killing occurred burned, as was LH’s body, but fire not attributable to accused — When arrested and interviewed three months later, accused made admissions, including to stabbing LH — Whether accused’s intellectual disability and schizophrenia impacted on judgment and impulse control, reduce weight to general and specific deterrence, and increase hardship of imprisonment — Accused intoxicated but aware intoxication makes him violent — Accused previously imprisoned for offences of violence — Pleas of guilty — Early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter — Reasonable to good prospects of rehabilitation — Sentence of ten-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on manslaughter — Sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on intentionally causing injury — Six months’ cumulation — Total effective sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment — Non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years — But for pleas of guilty, total effective sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of up to eleven years — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA & 18; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 5.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Rochford KC with Mr P Pickering	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Smallwood	Amad & Amad Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

In the early hours of 8 July 2021, at a gathering at a home unit in Dandenong, Emre Gurlu committed two serious acts of violence, one of which had consequences of the gravest kind.

While in the outside area of the unit, Mr Gurlu grabbed Neno Drozdan without warning and cut his cheek with a knife. Mr Gurlu then said to Mr Drozdan, “You want to fuck around now, cunt?” Ishmail Sozman and Masi Ayiik pushed Mr Gurlu away, and Mr Sozman yelled at him in Turkish. Mr Gurlu looked confused and said, in English, “Isn’t this the cunt you have a problem with?”

At this point, Laurence Hall came from inside the unit to the back door to see what was happening. Mr Sozman and Mr Gurlu then attacked Mr Hall. Mr Sozman punched him repeatedly while Mr Gurlu stabbed him twice to the chest with the knife. Afterwards, Mr Sozman and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading (Revised) R v Gurlu

Details

AGLC: (Revised) R v Gurlu [2022] VSC 820
Case: [2022] VSC 820
Decision Date: 22 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of (Revised) R v Gurlu, the appellant was charged with manslaughter and intentionally causing injury after a violent incident at a gathering. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the appellant's intellectual disability and schizophrenia, his awareness of his violent tendencies when intoxicated, and his previous history of violent offending. The appellant, along with others, left the scene without attempting to assist the victim or call emergency services, resulting in the victim's death from stab wounds. The appellant admitted to the stabbing when interviewed by police.

The court considered whether the appellant's intellectual disability and schizophrenia should reduce the weight given to general and specific deterrence, as well as increase the hardship of imprisonment. The court also noted the appellant's intoxication at the time of the incident, which he was aware made him violent. Despite the appellant's guilty pleas and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of ten-and-a-half years' imprisonment for manslaughter and 18 months' imprisonment for intentionally causing injury, with a non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. The court determined that the appellant's intellectual disability and schizophrenia did impact on his judgment and impulse control, but this did not outweigh the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to balance the appellant's personal circumstances with the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also considered the appellant's previous history of violent offending, which demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that required significant punishment and deterrence. The court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. The court noted that but for the appellant's pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence would have been fourteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of up to eleven years. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions in reaching its decision, including sections 5, 6AAA, and 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and section 5 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Orders