IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 21-01281

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
SIAP KARAKOK		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GAYNOR	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	30 June 2022 - 04 July 2022	
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 July 2022	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Karakok	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 2354	

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Gray	Office of Public Prosecutions 	
			
For the Accused	Mr L. Gwynn	Theo Magazis & Associates 	

HER HONOUR: 
1	Thank you. I should start by stating that rather than keeping Mr Karakok in suspense, I'm finding him not guilty on both charges.  
2	The accused, Siap Karakok has pleaded not guilty to one charge of possession of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, and one charge of discharging a firearm in a public place.  The charges are laid pursuant to s130(1A) and s131A(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.  
3	These charges are being tried by me as judge alone.  The accused applied to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s420D of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, and the application was granted on 29 June 2022.  In hearing this matter, I may take any decision that could have been made by a jury.  My decision will have, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury.
4	Pursuant to s420Z paragraph F of the Criminal Procedure Act, introduced by the annexment of the COVID-19 Emergency Measures Act 2020, s4A of the Jury Directions Act 2015 applies in this case.  Section 4A provides that the court's reasoning with respect to any matter in which parts 4, 5, 6, and 7 apply must be consistent with how a jury would be directed in accordance with the Jury Directions Act.
	Directions of Law  
5	I must apply all directions of law to myself that would have been given to a jury in this case.  I now refer to the general directions given in a criminal trial to which I must have regard.  In all criminal trials, an accused person is presumed innocent of the charge unless and until a jury determines he or she is guilty.  The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case against the accused.  No accused person must prove his or her innocence.  The prosecution always bears the burden of proof.  
6	An accused may be found guilty of a charge only if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the highest standard known to our law.  Proof to any lesser extent must result in a verdict of not guilty.  I must decide the case only on the evidence led in this trial.  I must determine the credibility and reliability of each witness called, and I may accept all, some, or none of a witness' evidence.  I must base my verdict only on evidence I find to be credible and reliable.  I will refer to other directions of law as they arise in the course of my reasons for judgment.  
	The Prosecution Case   
7	Much of the factual scenario alleged by the prosecution is not disputed.  Indeed, the prosecution relies upon the accused man's record of interview, both in proof of its case and as a description of the fact scenario alleged.  My outline of the prosecution case is based on the prosecution opening, together with excerpts from Mr Karakok's record of interview .  
8	This is appropriate in my view because the victim, in relation to Charge 2, Omar Karauzumcu, refused to make a police statement and gave no evidence at the trial.  The version of events given in Mr Karakok's record of interview was largely adopted in the prosecution opening and therefore comprises the primary evidence of what occurred on 21 November 2019, the date of the alleged offending.  
9	At the time of the alleged offending, Mr Karakok owned and operated an account business called Spartan Trust, which he ran from a factory premises at 32A Zakwell Court, Coolaroo.  His parents resided at a house at 53 Tarcoola Avenue, Meadow Heights.  Mr Karakok provided accounting services to a construction company called Promax Building which was owned by his close friends, two brothers named Ozan and Murat Gurgen.
10	The alleged offending occurred on 21 November 2019.  Sometime prior to that, a financial dispute had broken out between Promax Building and a plumber, Mario Polimeni.  Mr Polimeni's plumbing business was apparently sacked from a Promax construction site due to allegations by the Gurgen brothers as to unsatisfactory work.  It would seem, due to his close connection to the Gurgen brothers, the accused man also became involved in the dispute by way of being approached by Mr Polimeni and threatened, as were apparently the Gurgen brothers.  
11	Eventually, the alleged victim, Omar Karauzumcu, also became involved in the dispute, apparently representing to Mr Karakok and the Gurgen brothers that he was acting on behalf of Mr Polimeni.  Allegations were apparently made by Mr Polimeni and Mr Karauzumcu of injury and death if the debt to Mr Polimeni was not paid.  In addition, the amount Mr Polimeni said he was owed rose to $100,000 to $200,000 to $300,000.
	Charge 1  
12	In a telephone call on 21 November 2019, Mr Karakok and Mr Karauzumcu discussed meeting in person to talk about the ongoing financial dispute.  Mr Karauzumcu refused Mr Karakok's suggestion that they meet in his factory in Coolaroo, and an arrangement was then made to meet a soccer ground on Barry Road, Meadow Heights.  Mr Karakok was the holder of a general category handgun licence and a category A and B longarm licence.  He had no registered handguns attached to his handgun licence.  
13	Mr Karakok was driven to the meeting as a passenger in a while four-wheel drive Mercedes car which belonged to Murat Gurgen, and was driven by a friend of his, Abdul Rahib Deniz.  Mr Karakok also took with him a SIG Sauer handgun which was not registered to his name, and which belonged to Murat Gurgen.  At some stage whilst it was in his possession, the handgun was loaded with 9 millimetre rounds.  Charge 1, possessing and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place is based on these actions.  
14	Mr Dennis drove Mr Karakok to the soccer ground and there informed Mr Karauzumcu by phone that there were many people present.  Mr Karauzumcu arrived and suggested to Mr Karakok that the two of them go for a walk, which 
Mr Karakok refused, stating, 'I know what you're going to do.'  
15	Mr Karauzumcu and Mr Karakok then drove away from the soccer ground in their respective cars to find another location to meet.  Mr Karauzumcu rejected 
Mr Karakok's suggestion that they go to the Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre car park on the basis there were too many cameras there.  Mr Karakok also suggested Meadow Heights Park but this did not eventuate.  Time passed and the two men were not able to agree on a place to meet.  
16	Mr Karakok told police in his record of interview that as he was being driven through Meadow Heights, he saw Mr Karauzumcu's Holden Commodore enter Tarcoola Avenue, where Mr Karakok's parents lived and where his son was staying.  As a result, the Mercedes car followed to catch up, eventually cutting Mr Karauzumcu off and blocking or boxing his car behind a parked vehicle in a way that forced him to stop.
17	I will now refer directly to the prosecution opening which is based on Mr Karakok's record of interview.  At paragraph 19, “The accused claims that Omar looked armed.  The accused said to Omar, 'Why are you doing this?'  Omar said, 'Get out of the car', to which the accused responded, 'No'.”  
18	Paragraph 20, “The accused states that he then saw Omar shuffling with something and saw him going for a bag of description.  The accused wanted to scare him and 'wanted to only shoot like the doors or something on the car just to let him know that I'm not going to take this anymore'.”  
19	Paragraph 21, “The accused still seated in the passenger seat of his vehicle, fired two shots at the body of the vehicle that Omar was in, aiming for the vehicle, not for Omar himself.”  These actions underly Charge 2 on the indictment, discharging a firearm in a public place.  
20	Continuing with the prosecution opening at paragraph 22, “The accused aimed to the right of where Omar was seated in his vehicle.  However, after firing the two shots, he saw a bullet hole in the car door.”  Paragraph 23, “The accused heard Omar yell or groan.  
21	Paragraph 24, “The accused and Mr Dennis then drove off.  The accused returned to his factory premises in Coolaroo.”  
22	Paragraph 25, “After leaving the scene, the accused received a phone call from Omar, during which Omar said, 'Come back.  Where are you going?  Let's do round 2.  Where are you going?  Come back.  Come back'.  The accused responded, 'No, you want me, you come and get me at the factory'.” 
23	Police were notified by residents of Tarcoola Avenue, who reported hearing gunshots.  Uniformed members at the Broadmeadows police station also received a notification from the police communications centre that an unidentified man had called Triple 0 to advised that he had been shot while in his car at Meadow Heights and was driving to the Broadmeadows police station.  The notification was received at about 8.04 pm.  
24	At about 8.15 pm, a constable at Broadmeadows police station saw a man getting out of a sedan can in front of the Broadmeadows police station, who appeared to be limping and holding his right arm in an injured way.  He appeared to have a gunshot wound to his right arm.  An ambulance was called and the man taken to the Alfred Hospital for treatment.  He was identified as Omar Karauzumcu.  
Police obtained CCTV footage from a house at 80 Tarcoola Avenue, Meadow Heights, which depicted the arrival of the Holden VB Commodore at 7:54:06 pm, followed by the white Mercedes Benz about five seconds later.  About 10 seconds later the Holden VB Commodore became stationary outside 78 Tarcoola Avenue and the white Mercedes then became stationary outside 80 Tarcoola Avenue about 20 metres behind the Holden VB Commodore.  About 20 seconds later the Mercedes Benz began to drive forward towards the Holden VB Commodore, then pulled up directly next to it at 7:54:47 pm. 
1	
25	At 7:55:14 pm the Mercedes Benz drove off south along Tarcoola Avenue at a fast rate of speed at which time the Holden VB Commodore slightly reversed.  At 7:55:58 pm the Holden VB Commodore drove off south along Tarcoola Avenue at a slow pace.  That CCTV footage, the contents of which were not disputed by the defence, were played in evidence and tendered as an exhibit.
26	Police examined Mr Karauzumcu's car discovering a fired projectile in the driver's footwell and identified a bullet hole in the driver's side door and what appeared to be blood on the driver's seat.  Damage from the second bullet was located on the internal panel of the front near side door just beneath the internal handle.  Eventually police attended Mr Karakok's premises at 32B Zakwell Court at 4 am on 22 November 2019 and executed a search warrant.
27	The premises was found to be unoccupied but shortly after Mr Karakok presented himself at the upstairs window of the adjacent factory at 32A Zakwell Court and told police he was in the presence of two other occupants and that he was in possession of a loaded 9mm semi-automatic firearm.  Mr Karakok was arrested without incident by the Special Operations Group and taken to the Melbourne West Police Station where he participated in a record of interview.  Police searched the premises at 32A Zakwell Court finding a loaded semi-automatic handgun and a magazine under a couch together with two loaded SIG Sauer 9mm magazines.
28	In the record of interview Mr Karakok confirmed the handgun found by police was used in the shooting incident.  Police examined the Mercedes Benz on 
28 November 2019 locating a fired cartridge case in the front passenger footwell.

	Agreed Facts
29	A statement of agreed facts pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act 2008 was tendered Exhibit 1.  In essence in relation to Charge 1 it was agreed between prosecution and defence that at the time of the incident Mr Karakok was a holder of a general category handgun licence and category A and B longarm licence.  It was agreed that the category handgun licence was for target shooting.  It was further agreed that on 21 November 2019 Mr Karakok was in possession of the SIG Sauer handgun and that it was registered to Murat Gurgen.
30	In relation to Charge 2 it was agreed between the parties that on 21 November 2019 Mr Karakok fired two bullets from the SIG Sauer handgun at the blue Holden Commodore driven by Mr Karauzumcu.  It was agreed that at the time Mr Karauzumcu was seated in the driver's seat of the Holden Commodore.  It was further agreed that the shooting occurred in Tarcoola Avenue, Meadow Heights.  It was agreed that a bullet projectile was found in the driver's footwell of the Holden Commodore.
31	It was also agreed that the resident of 80 Tarcoola Avenue, Mr Tien Nguyen heard two gunshots at approximately 7.50 pm which were approximately five seconds apart.  It was agreed Mr Nguyen provided CCTV footage to police.  Finally it was agreed another resident, Mr Chengas Teaken heard gunshots at about 8 pm which he said sounded like they came from near the park which was approximately opposite to where the shooting took place and that there was roughly about 10 seconds between each shot.  Mr Gray also read the statement of each of the witnesses into the transcript.
	The Issues  
32	In his defence response Mr Gwynn said that in relation to both Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment the issue was one of self-defence.  
	The Evidence
33	Leading Senior Constable Raelene Elizabeth Conway  
Leading Senior Constable Conway gave evidence at the time of the incident she was working with Crime Scene Services at Broadmeadows Police Station.  On 21 November 2019 she took a number of photographs of a Holden Commodore which was parked outside the Broadmeadows Police Station.  Eighteen photographs of the exterior and interior of the Holden Commodore were entered as exhibits, Exhibit 5.
34	Sergeant Andrew Ryan Nisbet
Sergeant Nisbet is attached to the Ballistics Unit of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre where he works as a firearm and tool maker examiner.  It was not disputed that he was an expert witness. Sergeant Nisbet gave evidence that he compared a projectile taken from Mr Karauzumcu's arm and a fired cartridge case taken from the Mercedes Benz together with the SIG Sauer handgun used by Mr Karakok and gave his opinion that the fired bullet and the fired cartridge cases were both discharged by that firearm.

35	Sergeant Nisbet also gave evidence of the examination of the bullet hole in the driver's side door of the Holden Commodore and various tests which were carried out which determined that the bullet which passed through the driver's door did so at an angle of approximately 76 degrees in a downward direction.  He determined that a second shot entered the car on a slight downward angle causing damage to the passenger side door.
36	He said the shots originated from an area to the right of the driver's door of the Holden Commodore.  The bullet which went through the driver's door shattered the window glass which was in the lining of that door indicating that the driver's side window was open at the time of the shooting.  Sergeant Nisbet could not say the distance the bullets had travelled.
37	Acting Sergeant Jason Lee Zar  
Detective Zar was a Detective Senior Constable attached to the Armed Crime Squad as at 25 November 2019.  He was the informant in this matter.  He became involved on the morning of 22 November when he was briefed about the incident of the previous evening and conducted the record of interview with Mr Karakok who was then in custody at the Melbourne West Police Station.  The record of interview was played and tendered as an exhibit, Exhibit 6.
38	Detective Zar also identified photographs of the premises occupied by Mr Karakok at Zakwell Court which were tendered, I think also Exhibit 6.  In 
cross-examination Detective Zar agreed that on 13 November 2019 that the two Gurgen brothers reported to police that they were being blackmailed.  He agreed Mr Karakok had also attended the police station to report threats and that an effort was being made to blackmail him.  He agreed that the LEAP narrative revealed that the Gurgen brothers and Mr Karakok made complaints to police about being threatened and provided details of who was threatening them, the nature of the threats and when they occurred.
39	He agreed Mr Karakok told him in his record of interview he had installed a cage at the premises at 32 Zakwell Court as a protective measure.  He was shown two photographs of the cage with Mr Karakok in the foreground and agreed this was consistent with what Mr Karakok had told him.  Those photographs were tendered (Exhibit A).  He agreed that there was a notation on the Victoria Police LEAP reports that Mr Karauzumcu had an outlaw motorcycle gang affiliation which was placed on record on 24 June 2022.
40	He said that Mr Karauzumcu was observed at a 10 year anniversary ride for the Mongols Motorcycle Club.  He agreed this was consistent with what Mr Karakok stated in his record of interview about Mr Karauzumcu telling others he had links with outlaw motorcycle gangs.  Detective Zar also agreed that Mr Karakok told him in his record of interview that he and the Gurgens (who took their families), had fled to Queensland because of their concerns about the threats and that the call charge records obtained by police confirmed that calls Mr Karakok made during that period were made from Queensland.
1	
41	Detective Zar said that he did not take a statement from either of Mr Karakok's parents.  He investigated Mr Polimeni's criminal history and did not find one.  He said the Hume Crime Investigation Unit examined the complaints by Mr Karakok and the Gurgen brothers that Mario Polimeni had threatened them with violence and extortion.  Detective Zar said he did not take a statement from Mario Polimeni in this matter nor did he take statements from either Murat or Ozan Gurgen.  He agreed that they may have been able to corroborate what Mr Karakok said in his record of interview.
42	He said that Mr Deniz who drove the Mercedes Benz on 19 November refused to provide a statement.  He stated that the investigation of the time shown on the CCTV footage showed that it took Mr Karauzumcu about 15 or 20 minutes to arrive at the Broadmeadows Police Station and he was unable to say what direction he took in driving there or if he stopped off anywhere on the way.  He said that Mr Karakok had no prior or subsequent criminal history.  He agreed that in the record of interview Mr Karakok described the handgun accurately, that it belonged to Murat Gurgen and that he drew a diagram of the relative position of the two vehicles when the shooting occurred.
43	He agreed that Mr Karakok said in the record of interview that in relation to the second shot, the gun had jerked downwards and he was surprised when he saw a hole in the door which was corroborated by police examination and the finding that there was a hole in the driver's door.                        
44	He agreed that Mr Karakok in his record of interview told police they would find the firearm under the couch at Zakwell Court and this was correct.  He agreed Mr Karakok gave him a correct estimate of the time of the shooting.  Mr Gwynn took Detective Zar to Mr Karauzumcu's prior criminal history which he agreed could be characterised as involving general matters of violence.  Detective Zar said he had never interviewed Mr Karauzumcu in relation to the allegations by Mr Karakok and the Gurgen brothers.
45	Detective Zar was taken to a document headed 'Operation Bannister 2019 redacted', which is 17 pages long but involved the history of the reports by the Gurgens and Mr Karakok blackmail on 13 November 2019.  He agreed these included reports of threats to kill and that both Mr Karakok and the Gurgens had made statements to Victoria Police in relation to those threats.
46	Mr Gwynn took Detective Zar to a number of the reports involving the complaints and he agreed one of the alleged threats occurred at Mr Karakok's business in Zakwell Court.  He was also taken to a report of an incident on 3 December 2019 when Mr Karakok told police he was meeting up with a man named Ali whom he understood had put a hit out on him and was ordering Mr Karauzumcu to kill him.  Mr Karakok said he wanted to meet with Ali and pay him $5,000 to clear any issues.
47	Mr Gwynn tendered a bundle of LEAP reports, Exhibit B.  In re-examination, Detective Zar said there was no intelligence that Mr Karauzumcu was a patched member of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.  He said that using a Google Map, the direct path from Tarcoola Avenue to the Broadmeadows police station was about 5.5 kilometres.  He said there was nothing in the LEAP reports containing a complaint of Mr Karauzumcu threatening to shoot Mr Karakok.
Defence
48	Mr Gwynn called two-character witnesses on behalf of his client.  The first witness, Denise Okuchen, said she was a root-cause therapist which she explained as being therapy to help people resolve problems by using their subconscious to address any unresolved trauma.  She said she had over 200 clients.  She said she met Mr Karakok in 2015 when involved in a Facebook charity which was a Refugee and Asylum Seeker Toy Drive for the children of asylum seekers.  She said Mr Karakok donated to the toy drive, gave helpful advice and she formed a friendship with him.  Mr Karakok also became a client of hers and dealt with issues from him childhood in about 12-weekly sessions of two hours each.  She said they remained friends and described Mr Karakok as generous, caring, empathic and very kind.  She had never seen Mr Karakok behave in a violent way or express violent thoughts.
49	The second character witness, Lee Kendall, was a retired sessional tutor at Victoria University where he worked in the field of history.  Mr Kendall said he had known Mr Karakok since 2015 after meeting him in a shop in Northcote.  He described Mr Karakok's character as impeccable and was aware of his work with young Islamic men and efforts that he made to steer them away from radicalism.  He said he understood this work to be around the Coolaroo area.  Mr Kendall said he and Mr Karakok had had a great deal of discussion about the cultural interactions between Christendom and Islam over the past five centuries.  He described Mr Karakok as impeccably honest.  He said he had never observed him to be violent and when asked about whether Mr Karakok had ever expressed violent ideation said that in his discussions with Mr Karakok about violence in the context of religious fundamentalism Mr Karakok was clearly opposed to it.  He said he found Mr Karakok to be a gentleman.
Final Addresses 
50	Prosecution
Mr Gray submitted there were two questions to be answered in the affirmative before Mr Karakok could be found not guilty of Charge 1 on the basis of 
self-defence.  The first was whether he believed that it was necessary to take a loaded handgun to the meeting with Karauzumcu or before the meeting with him in order to defend himself.  Secondly, the question was whether this was a reasonable response to the circumstances as Mr Karakok perceived them.
51	Mr Gray then posed a third question which was what was the threat that Mr Karakok perceived from Mr Karauzumcu at the time he armed himself with the loaded weapon and went to the meeting with him?  Mr Gray submitted the only threat possible at that time would be that Mr Karauzumcu might be armed and that he, Mr Karakok, might be shot.  He submitted that such a threat could not exist at that time because the meeting had not begun, that is at that time there was no threat.  Therefore the response could not be a reasonable one.  Further, he could have avoided the meeting by not attending.  Mr Gray said there was no obligation for Mr Karakok to come down from Queensland and the next day attend a meeting where he perceived he was in danger of being shot.  He submitted that in borrowing a handgun and deliberately putting himself in a situation where he might be shot or may have to shoot the victim, Mr Karakok could not be in a situation where the actions were protected by the principles of self-defence.
52	In relation to Charge 2, Mr Gray submitted that it could not be successfully argued that to fire not one but two shots at an occupied vehicle were in effect the actions of a person acting in self-defence.  He submitted that to fire two shots, a person must consider that the safety of the occupier of the car being shot at would probably be endangered and yet Mr Karakok went ahead anyway satisfying the test for the legal concept of reckless.
53	Mr Gray submitted the real issue was whether it was necessary to fire two shots at the car and whether this was a reasonable response as perceived by Mr Karakok.  He submitted that if Mr Karakok did believe Mr Karauzumcu was going to get a handgun when he received for a bag, it was not a reasonable response to fire two as opposed to one shot into the car as a warning, those shots being five to 10 seconds apart.  He said Mr Karakok could have driven off after the first shot, that it was not a reasonable response even if he believed he is in danger of Mr Karauzumcu to fire a second shot.  Mr Gray submitted if those two shots were in fact warning shots, they were not going to alleviate the danger Mr Karakok perceived he faced.  Mr Gray pointed out that police found no weapon in Mr Karauzumcu's car when it was searched nor was any bag found.  Mr Karauzumcu made no threat to shoot the accused man or his family nor did any of Mr Karauzumcu's prior convictions reveal offending involving firearm, the normal charges one would expect if he was such a dangerous person as Mr Karakok perceived him to be.
54	He said whilst the LEAP reports revealed references to various people that had made threats, the threat to shoot was not made by the victim in this case and according to the record of interview had never been made by him.  Mr Gray referred to Mr Karakok's answer in his record of interview that he only wanted to shoot at the car to show Mr Karauzumcu that he was “not going to take it anymore” (referring to Question 52) and asked how that action if Mr Karauzumcu was armed would take away the threat that Mr Karakok perceived he was under.  He submitted that if Mr Karakok was going to take that threat away, he would not be firing a warning shot across Karauzumcu’s bow.
55	Mr Gray submitted again that even though it was clear that it was after the second shot that Mr Karakok perceived he had hit his victim, given that Mr Karauzumcu's car was boxed in by another car, there was nothing to prevent Mr Karakok from simply driving away after the first shot.  He submitted that in fact Mr Karakok could be seen as the real aggressor both by arming himself and then following the victim into the street where the shooting occurred, cutting him off, winding down the window and firing two shots into the car.
56	Finally, Mr Gray submitted that in the conversation by telephone after the shooting between Mr Karauzumcu and Mr Karakok, Mr Karakok refused to come back saying at ROI Question 203 that he was going to the factory and, 'You want me, you know where I am', and this simply did not support the contention that he acted in self-defence.
57	Defence
Mr Gwynn submitted that the defence of self-defence had been squarely and properly raised in the record of interview so that the burden was then on the prosecution to disprove this defence beyond reasonable doubt.  He submitted  the record of interview was really the primary source of all the evidence in the case.
58	Mr Gwynn submitted that the defence of self-defence gave rise to two questions; (a), the subjective question, 'Was there a reasonable possibility that Mr Karakok believed it was necessary to defend himself?'; and (b), 'Was there a reasonable possibility that what Mr Karakok did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them?'.  In relation to that latter point, Mr Gwynn submitted there was no requirement at law that the threat be immediate.
59	Mr Gwynn submitted the LEAP extract set out the leadup to the shooting incident.  The complaints in relation to Mr Polimeni, the installation of the cage for self-defence at the factory, attendance on police to seek intervention orders and then the leadup on the day with communications with Mr Karauzumcu over a meeting for a sit-down.  Mr Gwynn said that in the record of interview, Mr Karakok explained what he understood to be meant by Mr Karauzumcu as a sit-down.  He submitted that Mr Karakok in leaving his premises and arming himself with a handgun perceived an immediate threat and that that immediate threat reached reality when he got to the park.
60	Mr Gwynn submitted that given the lead up over a lengthy period of time, the complaints to police about being stood over, threatened, fleeing to Queensland, and installing the cage, that it was clear that Mr Karauzumcu and Mr Polimeni were the initial aggressors.  He said the LEAP extracts revealed a background of threats used by both people.  He also submitted that as a matter of law there was no requirement for an accused person to retreat but did concede that whether someone had taken the opportunity to retreat could go to the issue of the reasonableness of their belief and actions. 
61	He submitted that on the evidence Mr Karakok had the perception before the first shot that Mr Karauzumcu was reaching for something and that he continued reaching for something after the first shot and so the second shot was fired.  He submitted that further Mr Karakok was, as could be seen in an emotional part of the record of interview, clearly gravely concerned given the threats over a long period of time for the welfare of his son and his parents who lived nearby.  He said Mr Karakok perceived that Mr Karauzumcu was driving towards their house in the context of a background of threats and violence.
62	Mr Gwynn said in relation to the second shot it was the law that an accused person was not required to measure precisely the exact measure of self-defence action required.  He said that because self-defence inherently involved the perception of an accused person and the predicament that they found themselves in, this was a matter of fairness, inherent fairness.  He submitted Mr Karakok perceived, given that he was confronted with a violent man reaching for something in the context of an environment of threats and intimidation, there was a risk to the safety of himself and his loved ones.
63	Mr Gwynn pointed out that Mr Karakok had no prior convictions and there was no evidence that he had ever in his life been required in the agony of the moment to measure precisely whether he should take one shot or two.  He pointed out in terms of whether Mr Karakok's response was proportional to the threat he faced that Mr Karauzumcu on the evidence had been trying to cajole him out of the car and get him to go for a walk.  Mr Gwynn submitted Mr Karakok indicated in his record of interview what his understanding of a walk meant from Mr Karauzumcu and it would not end well.
64	Mr Gwynn submitted Mr Karakok fired two shots as a warning and no more, doing what was necessary and realising that the second shot had struck Mr Karauzumcu when he heard him groan.  It was nowhere submitted by the prosecution that he had intended to in fact shoot Mr Karauzumcu.  Mr Gwynn submitted Mr Karakok had done what was necessary and then left.  Essentially Mr Gwynn submitted Mr Karakok believed that his life was in imminent danger based on a background of threats of violence foreign to him, his family and friends being seriously threatened to the point they fled to Queensland was illustrated by the installation of the cage at his workplace.
65	Mr Gwynn pointed out police had been attended upon without result.  He submitted Mr Karakok did not have detached reflection when he phoned his son and wife and family members to say goodbye before going to meet 
Mr Karazumcu as he outlined in his record of interview.  Mr Gwynn submitted that it was clear Mr Karakok believed he and his family's lives were in a state of emergency and that to get out of it he had to meet with Mr Karazumcu.  
Mr Gwynn submitted Mr Karakok had conducted an honest and reliable record of interview and pointed out this was the only account of what actually occurred.
66	He said much of the evidence in the record of interview was volunteered and was corroborated by other evidence.  Overall he described Mr Karakok's record of interview as powerful, a powerful, compelling piece of evidence that was not rebutted and gave rise to a conclusion that he was acting in self-defence. 
	The Record of Interview   
67	The record of interview comprising questioning specifically about the shooting began at 10.53 am on 22 November 2019.  Mr Karakok told police that Mr Karauzumcu had been known to him for some years but that in the last couple of years he had 'taken a turn into the criminal world.'  He began by collecting debts for people but then became very involved in criminal matters (question and answer 39) and then 'all the way to extortion and from what I understand he's a patched-up member of a motorcycle club, outlaw motorcycle club right now (question and answer 40).
68	Mr Karauzumcu told him he dealt with drugs and that had caused Mr Karakok to distance himself from him.  He described the Gurgen brothers as his biggest clients and childhood friends who were also aware of Mr Karauzumcu's criminal past stating, 'we're all intimidated by him' (question and answer 40).  He said that Mr Karauzumcu would tell them about his criminal activities of extortion rackets he was in and that he was part of the Comancheros.  He told Mr Karakok what he was going to do to other people and that he had access to unregistered firearms which he had shown Mr Karakok on another occasion in the boot of his car.
69	He said Mr Karauzumcu had told him that 'top special operations police' (question and answer 41) had arrested him at gunpoint at a place where he was extorting, being a restaurant which Mr Karakok then named.  Mr Karakok said in June or July 2019 he was contacted by a man called Rigo Pisaka who was a known criminal and who contacted him because he knew he was best friends with the Gurgen brothers and that he was their accountant (question and answer 45 and 46).  He said this man wanted to try and chat to the Gurgen brothers about his friend Mario Polimeni and he, Mr Karakok, agreed.
70	He said people came to his office two or three times, became more and more aggressive and that the demands for payment from Promax went from $100,000 to $300,000.  He said he was threatened that 'we'll fuck you guys up, going to shoot the - Mario would see to it himself' (question and answer 46).  In the lengthy answer to question 46 Mr Karakok also said there were 'a whole heap' of violent threats, all of them firearm related.  He said the Gurgens had told him they did not owe Mario Polimeni money and that they had been to their lawyers who had sorted it.  He said Mr Pisaka became violent towards him, saying he was Mario Polimeni's partner and that Mario himself came in saying words like 'we're gonna shoot this place up, we're gonna fix you guys up.'
71	Mr Karakok said that after that he got a cage installed in his office thinking that would be the end of it (question 47).  He said that a couple of months later Murat Gurgen started getting calls from relatives telling him that people were threatening his family (question and answer 48).  He said that another man called Enzo was behind this and offered to show police photographs of Enzo and a man called Behu.  Mr Karakok said they were told there was another person from the Footscray Market also after them.
72	At question 49, he said Mr Karauzumcu started calling them, telling him that he and the Gurgens were in trouble, that they had to have a sit down, by which time he and the Gurgens and their families had fled to Queensland.  At question 42, Mr Karakok said Mr Karauzumcu tried to act like a peacemaker 'but it turns out he's the person behind it all.'  At question 52, in another lengthy answer 
Mr Karakok described a phone call ending with Mr Karauzumcu saying, 'the moment you come - he goes "I'm gonna meet up with you guys and the moment you come I'm gonna fuck you up" and he goes "it's all in now, it's all in now, it's all in now" is all he said.'
73	Mr Karakok said, 'and I didn't have my family with me at the time, I had to come back.'  That is, his family was still in Melbourne.  He said that on arrival back he rang Mr Karauzumcu who insisted that they meet at a park.  Mr Karakok stated 'I knew what he was doing, he was out to hurt me.  At least with the cage in the office I was safe but he knows where my parents live, he knows where my kids live and that's where I found him, in the street, in my parents' street where my son was that day.'
74	He said that pulled up next to Mr Karauzumcu's car and said that Mr Karauzumcu looked armed saying 'I've seen him with arms before and I've seen him going through a bag of some description.  Before he could I - I genuinely, genuinely, genuinely wanted only to shoot like the doors or something on the car just to let him know I'm not gonna take this anymore.  We went to the police; we tried getting intervention orders.  It didn't help.  Even with the rate that they did it took five days.  We went to the police, there was no help.'
75	At question 53, he stated 'we tried everything we could and that's when I let two shots, two rounds fire what I thought was across the body of the car.  Sorry, into the car but not at him.  I'm not sure I got - I only - I realised one of them may have hit him after he made like - and he moved his arm.  I'm not sure where it hit him, it could have been thigh or arm but he said "you're gonna, you haven't."  He said, "you know, you should have finished it off" and I said that's not why, I'm out and then he called after me.  He said, "come back, come back."  I said no.  He said, "Come back 'cos let’s do it again' and yeah, that's - that's the 100 per cent truth.'
76	At question 66, Mr Karakok said he did not know if he was going to come back alive but had to meet up with Mr Karauzumcu.                             
77	'I messaged my wife; I told her I love her and then I left.  I said sorry for everything'.  At Question 67, he said Mr Karauzumcu forced him to choose several locations, 'The first was very busy.  He suggested a park and then he said we saw his car, we followed him, and he was driving towards my house, my house where my son and parents were, so I shot him.  That's it'.  
78	Later in the record of interview, Mr Karakok detailed conversations where Mr Karauzumcu tried to make him go for a walk, which he refused to do.  He said that when the car pulled up, he said to Mr Karauzumcu, 'Why are you doing this?  Why are you doing this?  He goes, he said, "Get out of the car, get out of the car".  I said, "No".  I saw him shuffling with something, I intended to scare him, I fired the first shot.  I'd seen him shuffling some more.  I thought I'd scare him again but I think I hit him the second time’ (question and Answer 90).
79	Mr Karakok talked about suggesting meeting at Roxburgh Park car park which was rejected by Mr Karauzumcu as there were too many cameras (Question and Answer 103).  He said the car he was driving drove up to level with Mr Karauzumcu's car, which was boxed in because there was a parked car in front of him (Question and Answer 128).
80	At Question 146, he said he shot through a window while he was still in the car.  At Question 151, he said, 'I think on the second time I may have jerked a little bit because I dropped it, and I think that went a bit low'.  Question 152, he said, 'That's - that's the shot I think actually hit him because when I saw that, because I was shocked to see a bullet hole in his car door'.
81	At Question 154, he stated, 'But the second one I think may have jerked and it - it sort of went across his thigh or his arm or something.  I'm not sure'.  He described the shooting at Question 158 as 'almost like a fire across the bow type, you know, like how they fire warning shots, like to - like'.  
82	Mr Karakok gave descriptions of the gun, who it belonged too, and of the car.  He said following the shooting, Mr Karauzumcu called him saying, 'Come back.  Where are you going?  Let's do round 2.  Where are you going?  Come back, come back'.  And I said, "Nah, you want me, you come to me at the factory", and I just went to the factory’ (Question and Answer 190).  He said the owner of the car, Murat Gurgen, had left the car at the factory for safety, along with the keys.  
83	At Question 248, Mr Karakok told police that the gun he used was now under the couch.  And at Question 272, he said that Murat Gurgen, whose car it was, 'had no idea about this stuff'.  Much of the record of interview was then devoted to discussion about guns legitimately owned by Mr Karakok.  
	Further Directions of Law   
Self-defence 
84	Section 322K of the Crimes Act entitled 'self-defence' states 
(1) a person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence; 
(2) a person carries out conduct in self-defence if, 
(a) the person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence and; 
(b) the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.  
85	A footnote to s322K in the legislation states, 'The circumstances in which a person may carry out conduct in self-defence includes the defence of the person or another person'.  
86	An evidentiary burden lies on the defence to raise the defence of self-defence.  Once raised, it is for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting self-defence.  
87	In other words, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) that the accused did not believe that the conduct was necessary in self-defence or; (b), that the conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstance as the accused perceived them.  
88	Ultimately, I must determine (a) whether there was a reasonable possibility that Mr Karakok believed that this conduct was necessary to defend himself and; (b), was there a reasonable possibility that what he did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them.  If my answer to those questions is 'yes', then the prosecution has failed in its burdens.  
89	The first limb of self-defence is a subjective test, that is whether the accused believed that the conduct was necessary in self-defence.  It does not involve a consideration of what a reasonable ordinary person would have believed in the circumstance.  It does not matter if the accused’s belief was mistaken, as long as it was genuinely held.  
90	The second limb requires more objective examination, that is that the conduct was a reasonable response.  However, this is tailored by the requirement that this is a reasonable response in the circumstances, as the accused person believed them to be.
Inferential Reasoning  
91	An inference of guilt may only be drawn against an accused person if it is the only inference reasonably open on the facts.  If a hypothesis consisted with innocence is open on the facts, then a guilty inference may not be drawn.
Character Evidence 
92	If it is accepted that an accused is a person of good character, this may be used in two ways.  First, it can be used when assessing the credibility of the accused's evidence or his denials of the prosecution case.  As a person of good character is generally thought to be more trustworthy than other people, a jury may be less willing to accept the prosecution's evidence than if he was not a person of good character.  
93	Second, this fact can be used when determining the likelihood that the accused committed the offence as charged.  As it is generally believed that a person of good character is less likely to commit a criminal offence, a jury may be less willing to accept the prosecutor's allegations that the accused committed the offences than if he were not a person of good character.  
94	However, acceptance of an accused is of good character does not mean that he must be found not guilty, as this fact cannot alter proven facts.  It only helps to determine whether or not those facts have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  In addition, it should be borne in mind that a person who has previously been of good character can commit a crime for the first time.  
Section 43 of the Jury Directions Act - Failure to Call Witnesses
95	I was informed by the prosecutor that Mr Karauzumcu refused to make a statement and was not called in evidence.  No evidence was called from the Gurgen brothers.  Section 43 allows defence counsel to request a direction on this point if pursuant to sub-s2, the trial judge is satisfied that the prosecution, (a), was reasonable expected to call or question a witness and; (b), has not satisfactorily explained why it did not call or question the witness.
96	I understand that the alleged victim in this matter has refused to give a statement.  I did not receive a satisfactory explanation as to why evidence was not led from the Gurgen brothers or Mario Polimeni, all of whom in my view were extremely relevant witnesses to the alleged dispute said to underly the charged offences.  It is therefore appropriate in my view to accede to Mr Gwynn's request and apply the direction that, in the circumstances, I may conclude that the witnesses would not have assisted the prosecution's case.  I do draw that conclusion.
Right to Silence 
97	As Mr Karakok did not give evidence pursuant so s41 of the Jury Directions Act, I must apply the following principles of law, (a), the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused man; (b), no accused is required to give evidence; (c), I should not guess or speculate what might have been contained in evidence had he given it and; (d), the fact that Mr Karakok did not give evidence is not evidence against him, is not an admission by him, must not be used to fill gaps in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and does not strengthen the prosecution case.  
Liberato Direction
98	In relation to Mr Karakok's record of interview, I do not need to accept the record of interview in order to find Mr Karakok not guilty.  In keeping with the requirement, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I must acquit him if what he said gives rise to reasonable doubt.  This is a case, even if I prefer the evidence of prosecution witnesses to the answers in the record of interview.  It is not sufficient for me to fairly find the prosecution case to be preferable to the defence case.  
99	Before I can convict Mr Karakok, I must be satisfied that the prosecution have proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.  So, even if I do not think Mr Karakok is telling the truth, because I am unsure where the truth lies, I must find him not guilty.  In fact, even if I am convinced that his record of interview is not true, it is not the case that it must therefore convict him.  In such circumstances, I should put the record of interview to one side and ask myself whether the prosecution has proved Mr Karakok's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence I do accept.  
Conclusion 
100	This is a most unusual case, in that the fact scenario said to underly the alleged offending in arises from Mr Karakok's own record of interview with police.  He is the only eyewitness account of the events in question.  The CCTV footage is of assistance, as were the forensic findings presented here in court.  
1	
101	However, the only version of events as to how this incident came about, what exchanges there were between Mr Karakok and Mr Karauzumcu, and why 
Mr Karakok acted as he did all derive from Mr Karakok himself.  
102	Having viewed the record of interview, I am satisfied that Mr Karakok appeared to be genuine in the answers he gave to police.  
103	From the start, he was forthcoming, and he gave responsive answers to all questions about him concerning this incident.  The contents of the LEAP reports that were tendered by defence do indeed reveal that Mr Karauzumcu has a number of prior convictions for violence (albeit none of them involving firearms) and that he is tagged as having associations with an outlaw motorcycle gang, albeit the Mongols as opposed to the Comanchero which, according to Mr Karakok in his record of interview, was a gang he understood Mr Karauzumcu to be associated with.  
104	The LEAP report tendered by the defence revealed complaints of threats of violence to Mr Karakok, the Gurgens, and their family.  According to the LEAP reports, the threats began on 6 May 2019 when two employees of Mr Polimeni went to the Promax site to get their tools and told Promax employees that 'Mario is going to shoot your bosses when he sees them'.  The next threat is said to have occurred at Mr Karakok's office where he was approached by Mr Polimeni, who said he was owed $300,000.
105	On that occasion, the complaint was that Mr Polimeni effectively threatened both Mr Karakok and the Gurgen brothers that they would be shot if they did not pay up.  Soon after, there were apparently more threats by Mr Polimeni to Ozan Gurgen that he was going to come to his house and shoot him and his whole family.  There was a complaint that on 12 November, a Promax worker was approached by an unknown person who said that the Italians in the Footscray Market knew about the money owed to Mr Polimeni and were going to come for them.
106	There was also a report from Mr Karakok that on 3 December 2019 he attended on a man named Shiraz Ali, who he heard had put out a hit on him in order to pay him $5000 to dissuade him, but at the scene he was robbed by Ali and other males of the bag with the money, his keys and wallet, and his car was taken.  In the process, a gun was produced, and it is noted by police on the report that there were four independent witnesses to this alleged incident.  
107	The reports indicated that whilst there was an examination by police, it was not believed there was sufficient evidence to bring charges.  It was confirmed by police that Mr Karakok was in Queensland at the time he said he was.  Although Mr Gray submitted that he could have stayed in Queensland, I accept what 
Mr Karakok said in his record of interview, that his family was still Melbourne and he needed to return to them.
108	In terms of what is required for self-defence to be raised, I am satisfied that on all the evidence, in particular, the record of interview, the defence did satisfy its evidentiary burden to establish self-defence, and that therefore it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Karakok was not acting in self-defence when he caried the gun and shot at Mr Karauzumcu. 
109	As to the first limb of self-defence, the question is whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt Mr Karakok did not believe the conduct he engaged in was necessary.  
110	All right, I will repeat that again.  As to the first limb, the question is whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Karakok did not believe that the conduct he engaged in was necessary in self-defence.  
Charge 1 
111	In relation to Charge 1, there was no evidence as to when 
Mr Karakok loaded his gun.  All that can be concluded is that he loaded the gun at some stage before shooting at Mr Karauzumcu.  That is, applying inferential reasoning, and that is all that is open in my view.
112	On the evidence before me, Mr Karakok may have loaded the firearm before he left his premises, he may have done so once he saw Mr Karauzumcu's car head down the street where his parents lived or sometime in between.  Mr Karakok may have decided that he needed a loaded weapon when he met Mr Karauzumcu, wherever that might be, or he may have decided that the weapon need be loaded only if they met in certain circumstance.  He was not specifically questioned by police about when the gun was loaded.
113	The only evidence before me as to the circumstances underlying the formation of belief by Mr Karakok that the conduct was necessary in self-defence, as I have said, is the record of interview, which was corroborated by a history of complaints to police of serious threats to the lives of Mr Karakok, the Gurgens, and their families.  
114	On the evidence, Mr Karakok first took action against Mr Karauzumcu when he saw him drive into the street where his parents lived and his son was staying.  Based on his record of interview and the LEAP reports tendered by the defence, this was against a background of threats by various people of serious harm to himself, the Gurgens, and their families.  Police action had not been forthcoming.  
115	Further, the evidence was that Mr Karauzumcu had boasted of previous violent criminal activity, and showed Mr Karakok unregistered guns and had, the day before over the phone, threatened Mr Karakok himself.  Nor is it disputed that Mr Karakok's parents lived about 20 houses down from where the shooting took place.  Mr Karakok told police that he feared for his life in the meeting with 
Mr Karauzumcu.  
116	In my view, there is at least the possibility that Mr Karakok carried the loaded weapon - and I reiterate that I cannot conclude when it was loaded - in the genuine belief that the lives of himself and/or his family were at risk from Mr Karauzumcu, and that he needed to confront him with a weapon in order to defend himself and others.  In other words, I am not satisfied the prosecution have proved to the required standard that Mr Karakok did not believe it was necessary do what he did.  
117	In relation to the second limb, the question here being has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as Mr Karakok perceived them to be. Again, I am not satisfied in relation to Charge 1 that the prosecution proved its case against self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.  
118	Again, given the uncontradicted evidence of threats and intimidation, Mr Karakok's efforts to report the matters to police, the police decision not to proceed on these complaints, the inability to conclude when 
Mr Karakok loaded his gun, the unsatisfactory gap in evidence relating to relevant witness, in particular, Mr Karauzumcu, evidence of Mr Karauzumcu's prior criminal history, Mr Karakok's reasons for returning to his family in Melbourne, and then the meeting with Mr Karauzumcu, Mr Karauzumcu driving into the street where Mr Karakok's family lived, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable for Mr Karakok to carry a loaded firearm in the circumstances he believed them to be.  
119	In other words, there is, in my view, at least a possibility that Mr Karakok's conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them to be.  The verdict on Charge 1 is therefore not guilty.  
120	In relation to Charge 2, forensic material established that the car was shot at rather than Mr Karauzumcu.  Mr Karakok told police he fired at the car as a warning, essentially to deter Mr Karauzumcu from actions he believed Mr Karauzumcu was going to take against himself and/or his family and indicated that he would no longer tolerate the threats and intimidation.  
121	Again, it is clear the shooting took place in the street about 20 houses from where Mr Karakok's parents lived.  Again, this occurred against a history of threats made by Mario Polimeni or others associated with him of he, the Gurgens, and their families being shot or harmed, and that his belief was Mr Karauzumcu was a violent criminal with affiliations to outlaw motorcycle gangs, the latter point being borne out, as I have said, by police - a notation on police LEAP records, notwithstanding that it was not made until June of this year.  
122	This evidence is capable of bearing out Mr Karakok's answers to police in his record of interview about his beliefs relating to Mr Karauzumcu, which he said were also based on what Mr Karauzumcu had also told him.  
123	Mr Karakok told police in his record of interview that Mr Karauzumcu tried to get him out of the car and then appeared to reach for something.  He shot again very shortly after - indeed, on the evidence, seconds when, as he told police, he saw Mr Karauzumcu continuing to reach for something in the car.  In those circumstance, in my view, it remains at least a possibility that at this time, Mr Karakok believed it was necessary to do as he did in self-defence.  I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has negated self-defence on the first limb.
Charge 2
124	Again, for much the same reasons, I have reached the same conclusion in relation to Charge 2.  Additionally, in relation to Charge 2 and the second limb of self-defence, there is the uncontradicted evidence that Mr Karakok fired the first shot in the belief that Mr Karauzumcu was armed, was reaching for a weapon or a bag, and then believing Mr Karauzumcu was still reaching for it, fired again some seconds later. 
125	The fact that no weapon was found in Mr Karauzumcu's car cannot lead to the conclusion he had no gun.  In my view, the possibility remains open that he could have disposed of it in the 15 minutes that he drove the five miles to the police station.  Nor does the fact that he has no prior convictions involving firearms allow for the conclusion that Mr Karauzumcu did not have a gun on that occasion, or that Mr Karakok did not believe he had one when he shot at the car.  
126	Mr Karauzumcu does, on the evidence, have prior convictions for violence.  It is noted by police, as I have said, at having attended an Outlaw Motorcycle Club rally, had, as I have said, on the uncontradicted answers given by Mr Karakok in his record of interview, boasted violent criminal activity and showed unregistered firearms to Mr Karakok, threatened Mr Karakok himself, represented himself as acting on behalf of men, making serious threats of violence and death against Mr Karakok, the Gurgens, and their families.  
127	He drove into the street where Mr Karakok's parents lived in the context of a meeting aimed at forcing the Gurgens to pay up or face harm, this reasonably, in my view, leading Mr Karakok to conclude that his family were under threat.  
128	At that time, Mr Karakok took the action that he did.  That action also did not involve a decision to shoot Mr Karauzumcu himself, but to fire shots to warn him off.  It was not unreasonable in the circumstances for Mr Karakok to check Mr Karauzumcu's reaction after the first shot, in my view, and the evidence of five to 10 second between the shots, also in my view, sits satisfactorily with Mr Karakok's versions of events and the decision to make the second shot.  The evidence is that he drove off, on realising he had in fact hit Mr Karauzumcu, presumably realising he was unlikely then to pursue his family.  
129	In my view, in all of these circumstances, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Karakok's actions were not reasonable in the circumstances that 
Mr Karakok believed them to be.  In reaching this conclusion, I also take into account Mr Karakok's previous good character, which is devoid of any criminal history, and the good character evidence led on his behalf as to his attitude towards violence and presentation generally.
130	That evidence made it less likely, in my view, that Mr Karakok is not acting in self-defence.  I find Mr Karakok not guilty on Charge 2.  Thank you.
131	COUNSEL:  As Your Honour pleases.  
132	MR GWYNN:  Not guilty.  Your Honour, I think there's still summary charges before the court. It's my application to have those matters transferred back to the Magistrates' Court pursuant to s242 sub-paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.  
133	HER HONOUR:  Yes, I'll do that. 
134	MR GWYNN:  I'll probably need to check on the correct court.  
135	HER HONOUR:  I've got no idea what the correct court is.
136	MR GWYNN:  No.
137	HER HONOUR:  But we'll sort that.  I would imagine - where are we, Meadow Heights, so we're looking at what, Broadmeadows.
138	MR GWYNN:  It might be Broadmeadows, yes.
139	HER HONOUR:  Yes, all right, probably Broadmeadows court.  So, I'll transfer them back to the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court.
140	MR GWYNN:  And just for a mention, Your Honour.
141	HER HONOUR:  For a mention, all right, done.  All right, that’s it.
142	MR GWYNN:  Thank you, Your Honour.
143	HER HONOUR:  Thank you very much.  Yes, you are excused.  We'll call over the next matter, thank you.
‑ ‑ ‑