R v Elturk [2012] NSWDC 275

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Elturk [2012] NSWDC 275 Hearing dates: 4 June 2012 Decision date: 05 June 2012 Before: Nicholson SC DCJ Decision: The application of the prosecution is rejected. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Application to vacate pleas of guilty - Prosecution application upon proper verdict is not guilty by reason of mental illness - Strong evidence of mental illness - Test whether plea an informed plea Cases Cited: R v Murphy [1965] VR 187 at 191. Damic v R [1982] 2 NSWLR 750 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30). Ming Yuk Wong v DPP NSWSC 129 R v Sagiv (1986) 22 ACrimR 73 Maxwell v R (1995) 184 CLR 501 R v Anderson [1981] VR 155 Meissner v R (1994-5) 184 CLR 132 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Crown John Elturk Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions File Number(s): 2011/1234

Judgment 1John Elturk was committed for trial upon three charges, namely that on 3 January 2011 at West Hoxton in the State of New South Wales, he did steal a knife, the property of Woolworths Limited; then that on 3 January 2011 at Hoxton Park in the State of New South Wales did wound Sohail Elturk with intent to murder the said Sohail Elturk; and finally, at the same time and place, he did wound Sohail Elturk with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. 2Those charges were placed upon an indictment and pleas of guilty were entered to counts 1 and 3, and accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment. 3On 4 June, that is, yesterday, Mr Elturk was before me for sentence. Then a most unusual application was made by the Crown. When I say unusual, I do not mean that I am critical of it, but the application was one that I would reject the guilty plea and require Mr Elturk to stand his trial, on the basis that a more appropriate outcome for this litigation would be a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. 4The application was opposed by the defence, who sought to proceed upon the pleas of guilty. 5The facts alleged by the Crown are set out in the would-be Crown brief on sentence. I will refer to them in a moment. It is fair to say the defence do not dispute these allegations.