Two defendants in the case of the murder of an Australian citizen in\nBali, Mevlut Coskun and Paea-I-Middlemore Tupou, have officially filed\ncassation appeals to the Supreme Court (MA). This step was taken after\nthe legal team identified several irregularities in the appellate\ndecision from the Denpasar High Court.<\/p>\n
The lawyer for both defendants, Rahul Singh, revealed that they found\nerrors in the previous appellate decision that were not merely\nadministrative. According to him, there were also irregularities related\nto the substance of the law.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are formal errors, as well as material errors. Initially, we\nthought it might be human error, such as a misspelling of the case\nnumber. But as we delved deeper, it no longer appeared to be a simple\nmistake,\u201d said Rahul at the Denpasar District Court on Tuesday\n(28\/4\/2026).<\/p>\n
In the appellate decision at the Denpasar High Court, Coskun and\nTupou were each sentenced to 18 years in prison. Meanwhile, the other\ndefendant, Darcy Francesco Jenson, was given a sentence of 17 years in\nprison. The sentences for all three defendants were heavier than those\nfrom the first-instance court.<\/p>\n
One irregularity highlighted by Rahul is the appearance of Article\n391 in the considerations of the appellate decision. According to him,\nin both the old Criminal Code (KUHP) and the new KUHP, that article is\nnot related to the crime of murder.<\/p>\n
In the old KUHP, Rahul stated, Article 391 regulates fraud in the\nsale of securities. Whereas in the new KUHP, the same article regulates\nthe forgery of documents. Rahul suspects that the inclusion of that\narticle indicates that the appellate judge\u2019s considerations were copied\nfrom another case\u2019s decision without adjustment.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m also puzzled about where Article 391 came from. It remains a\nmajor question to this day,\u201d said Rahul.<\/p>\n
Another irregularity he questioned is the change in the verdict\u2019s\noperative part from \u2018participation\u2019 to \u2018assistance\u2019. According to Rahul,\nthat change should have resulted in a reduction in the sentence, not the\nopposite.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it\u2019s assistance, the sentence is lighter\u2014around two-thirds of the\nprincipal penalty threat. If the reference is 20 years, it should be\naround 13 years, not increased,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Rahul said that both of his clients felt disappointed despite\nclaiming to have been cooperative throughout the trial. Nevertheless,\nRahul stated that they still respect the judicial process.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe still respect the court\u2019s decision, but legal remedies are still\navailable. We hope the Supreme Court can deliver the fairest possible\ndecision,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The cassation process is estimated to take one to two months,\nconsidering the defendants\u2019 detention status as a factor. Previously,\nDarcy\u2019s legal team had also filed objections to the appellate decision\nfor similar reasons, including suspicions of copy-pasting considerations\nfrom another case.<\/p>\n
Darcy Files Cassation<\/p>\n
The day before, Darcy\u2019s legal team, for Darcy Francesco Jenson, also\nfiled a cassation and expressed objections to the appellate decision.\nThey challenged the emergence of narratives in the decision that were\nclaimed never to have been stated by Darcy during the trial.<\/p>\n
This includes admissions regarding \u2018wrong target\u2019 and accusations as\na professional hitman. These objections became the basis for Darcy\u2019s\ncassation filing.<\/p>\n
\u201cParts of the decision appear to copy arguments, statements, and\nconsiderations from another defendant\u2019s case, then insert them into\nDarcy\u2019s case. Yet those statements were never made by Darcy and were\nnever part of the appeal or his defence,\u201d said Katharina Nutz, Darcy\u2019s\nlawyer.<\/p>\n
In the appellate decision, Nutz stated, Darcy was portrayed as if he\nadmitted to a \u2018wrong target\u2019 and as if he came to Indonesia as a\nprofessional hitman. According to her, Darcy never stated such\nthings.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means someone could be tried using words and arguments that\naren\u2019t even their own,\u201d said Nutz.<\/p>\n
\u201cCriminal decisions must be accurate, meticulous, and based only on\nproven facts against the person being tried,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n
This case originated from a shooting incident at Villa Casa Santisya,\nMunggu Village, Mengwi, Badung, in the early hours of 14 June 2025. Two\nAustralian citizens, Zivan Radmanovic (33) and Sanar Ghanim (34), became\nvictims in the attack.<\/p>\n
Zivan Radmanovic was shot while in the toilet and died. Meanwhile,\nSanar Ghanim, who was shot in the room, survived although his leg and\nhand were injured. After carrying out the act, the perpetrators fled on\na motorbike.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/defendants-in-australian-citizens-murder-case-in-bali-appeal-high-court-ruling-to-supreme-court-1777355522", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }