Legal Research
Cases
Taskiran v The Queen

Taskiran v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 358 14 November 2011

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0302

DENIZ TASKIRAN
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2010 0322

JOSEPH NABALARUA	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and HANSEN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 358
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Taskiran; R v Nabalarua; (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Jenkins, 27 August 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Repeated attacks against defenceless victim – Attack began as vigilantism – First appellant sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of six and a half years – Second appellant sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five years – Whether sentences manifestly excessive – Youthful offenders – Strong prospects of rehabilitation – Non-parole periods manifestly excessive – Appeals allowed – Head sentences unchanged – First appellant’s non-parole period reduced to five and a half years – Second appellant’s non-parole period reduced to four years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant Taskiran	Mr D A Dann	Randles Cooper and Co
For the Appellant Nabalarua	Mr P Tiwana	James Dowsley and Associates
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WARREN CJ:

Both appellants have pleaded guilty and been sentenced in respect of one count of intentionally causing serious injury. The offence was committed by each appellant against the same victim in the same circumstances. For that offence, the first appellant, Deniz Taskiran, received a sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and six months’ imprisonment. The second appellant, Joseph Nabalarua, received a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years’ imprisonment. Both appellants appeal their sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and that the difference between the non-parole periods imposed upon them and their head sentences was too narrow.

The circumstances of the offending

On the night of 15 September 2009, Mr Taskiran’s mother, Ms Demiral, saw the victim, Harold Noyaux, breaking into Mr Taskiran’s car outside her unit in Hallam. She telephoned Mr Taskiran, who was leaving his girlfriend’s house in Noble Park. He drove his girlfriend’s car to the area of his mother’s unit, whilst Ms Demiral continued to follow the victim on foot. By the time he arrived, Mr Noyaux had left the scene but Mr Taskiran observed him near the corner of Harmer Road and Princes Highway, about 500-600 metres from his mother’s unit.

At this time, Mr Nabalarua was at home, sitting with his sisters and brother watching television. His house was on the corner of Harmer Road and the Princes Highway. He was not known to his co-offender, Mr Taskiran, except by sight, and then only as neighbours. Mr Nabalarua heard a car screeching outside his house. His brother told him that he believed he saw someone in…

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 Taskiran v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taskiran v The Queen [2011] VSCA 358
Case: [2011] VSCA 358
Decision Date: 14 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taskiran v The Queen, the appellants were convicted of their involvement in a series of violent attacks against a defenceless victim. The dispute was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was the severity of the sentences imposed on the appellants, with a particular emphasis on whether the non-parole periods were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including whether the sentences were appropriate in light of the appellants' age and potential for rehabilitation, and whether the initial attack had transitioned from an act of vigilantism to a premeditated assault. The court needed to determine if the severity of the sentences, particularly the non-parole periods, were justified given these factors.

The court acknowledged that the attacks were brutal and had caused significant harm to the victim. However, it also noted that the appellants were young and had shown remorse. The court concluded that the non-parole periods were indeed manifestly excessive. It reduced the non-parole period for the first appellant to five and a half years and for the second appellant to four years. The head sentences, however, remained unchanged.

The court's final orders involved the reduction of the non-parole periods for both appellants while maintaining the overall sentences. The decision underscored the importance of considering the age and rehabilitation prospects of offenders in determining the appropriate length of non-parole periods.

Orders