R v Yavaz Kilic [2016] HCA 48: Sentencing
Wednesday 7 December 2016 @ 1.06 p.m. | Crime
The High Court of Australia has today (7 December 2016) unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Victoria in the case of R v Yavaz Kilic [2016] HCA 48. The High Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was wrong in ruling that the sentence imposed on the respondent by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive.
Background
The respondent, a 22 year old male at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury and two summary offences after attacking the victim, his then pregnant partner. The offence occurred 12 weeks into the victim’s pregnancy when the victim arrived at the respondent’s home with two mutual friends. The respondent attacked the victim’s car with a samurai sword and yelled abuse at the victim for some time before returning to the house. He later returned to the car and attacked the victim who struggled to fight him off. During this, the respondent emptied a can of petrol onto the victim and later returned with a cigarette lighter igniting the petrol on the victim’s chest. The victim was immediately engulfed in flames. She was eventually taken to hospital and required multiple life-saving complex treatments. Due to the nature of her injuries, the victim requested the termination of her pregnancy.
Sentencing and Court of Appeal
The sentencing judge sentenced the respondent to 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and found that there was such “a disparity between the sentence imposed [for the offence of causing serious injury] and current sentencing practice as illustrated by the authorities relied upon by the parties" that they were satisfied that there had "been a breach of the underlying sentencing principle of equal justice". Accordingly, they quashed the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge and re-sentenced the respondent to 10 years and 10 month’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
High Court
The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its reasoning. The Court found that the seriousness of the injury in this case warranted its classification as being at ‘the upper end of the range of seriousness’ and as such it was not manifestly excessive. The Court held:
The High Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s orders and restored the original sentences.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
