R v Bikic [2001] NSWSC 571

R v Bikic [2001] NSWSC 571

The verdicts required sentencing on the basis that Mr Bikic was aware of the presence of a gun or guns and contemplated that a gun might be fired with the intent requisite for murder, while the manslaughter verdict for Mr Yildirim reflected the circumstances of that killing rather than any reduction in Mr Bikic's conduct. His murder conviction significantly elevated his overall criminality above that of co-offenders convicted only of manslaughter, but the sentences were made partly cumulative to reflect totality because both offences arose from one brief episode.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Sentence for Murder and Manslaughter / Remarks on Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty of Murder and Manslaughter
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to effective imprisonment for seventeen years, with non-parole periods aggregating twelve years, dating from 6 September 1999.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'pre Sentence Custody']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'pre Sentence Custody']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Sentence for Murder and Manslaughter / Remarks on Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty of Murder and Manslaughter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What factual basis should be adopted for sentence following verdicts of guilty of murder of Mehmet Unsal and manslaughter of Orhan Yildirim.' "Whether the offender's culpability was comparable to or less than that of co-offenders sentenced for manslaughter." 'How pre-sentence custody, onerous custody conditions, bail conditions, special circumstances and totality should affect the sentences and non-parole periods.']

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts required sentencing on the basis that Mr Bikic was aware of the presence of a gun or guns and contemplated that a gun might be fired with the intent requisite for murder, while the manslaughter verdict for Mr Yildirim reflected the circumstances of that killing rather than any reduction in Mr Bikic's conduct. His murder conviction significantly elevated his overall criminality above that of co-offenders convicted only of manslaughter, but the sentences were made partly cumulative to reflect totality because both offences arose from one brief episode.

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to effective imprisonment for seventeen years, with non-parole periods aggregating twelve years, dating from 6 September 1999.

Orders

  • ['For the manslaughter of Orhan Yildirim, imprisonment for ten years, to date from 6 September 1999, with a non-parole period of seven years.' 'For the murder of Mehmet Unsal, imprisonment for sixteen years, to date from 6 September 2000, with a non-parole period of eleven years.' 'Eligible for release on parole on...