Defendants in Australian Citizen's Murder Case in Bali Appeal High Court Ruling to Supreme Court

Two defendants in the case of the murder of an Australian citizen in Bali, Mevlut Coskun and Paea-I-Middlemore Tupou, have officially filed cassation appeals to the Supreme Court (MA). This step was taken after the legal team identified several irregularities in the appellate decision from the Denpasar High Court.

The lawyer for both defendants, Rahul Singh, revealed that they found errors in the previous appellate decision that were not merely administrative. According to him, there were also irregularities related to the substance of the law.

“There are formal errors, as well as material errors. Initially, we thought it might be human error, such as a misspelling of the case number. But as we delved deeper, it no longer appeared to be a simple mistake,” said Rahul at the Denpasar District Court on Tuesday (28/4/2026).

In the appellate decision at the Denpasar High Court, Coskun and Tupou were each sentenced to 18 years in prison. Meanwhile, the other defendant, Darcy Francesco Jenson, was given a sentence of 17 years in prison. The sentences for all three defendants were heavier than those from the first-instance court.

One irregularity highlighted by Rahul is the appearance of Article 391 in the considerations of the appellate decision. According to him, in both the old Criminal Code (KUHP) and the new KUHP, that article is not related to the crime of murder.

In the old KUHP, Rahul stated, Article 391 regulates fraud in the sale of securities. Whereas in the new KUHP, the same article regulates the forgery of documents. Rahul suspects that the inclusion of that article indicates that the appellate judge’s considerations were copied from another case’s decision without adjustment.

“I’m also puzzled about where Article 391 came from. It remains a major question to this day,” said Rahul.

Another irregularity he questioned is the change in the verdict’s operative part from ‘participation’ to ‘assistance’. According to Rahul, that change should have resulted in a reduction in the sentence, not the opposite.

“If it’s assistance, the sentence is lighter—around two-thirds of the principal penalty threat. If the reference is 20 years, it should be around 13 years, not increased,” he added.

Rahul said that both of his clients felt disappointed despite claiming to have been cooperative throughout the trial. Nevertheless, Rahul stated that they still respect the judicial process.

“We still respect the court’s decision, but legal remedies are still available. We hope the Supreme Court can deliver the fairest possible decision,” he said.

The cassation process is estimated to take one to two months, considering the defendants’ detention status as a factor. Previously, Darcy’s legal team had also filed objections to the appellate decision for similar reasons, including suspicions of copy-pasting considerations from another case.

Darcy Files Cassation

The day before, Darcy’s legal team, for Darcy Francesco Jenson, also filed a cassation and expressed objections to the appellate decision. They challenged the emergence of narratives in the decision that were claimed never to have been stated by Darcy during the trial.

This includes admissions regarding ‘wrong target’ and accusations as a professional hitman. These objections became the basis for Darcy’s cassation filing.

“Parts of the decision appear to copy arguments, statements, and considerations from another defendant’s case, then insert them into Darcy’s case. Yet those statements were never made by Darcy and were never part of the appeal or his defence,” said Katharina Nutz, Darcy’s lawyer.

In the appellate decision, Nutz stated, Darcy was portrayed as if he admitted to a ‘wrong target’ and as if he came to Indonesia as a professional hitman. According to her, Darcy never stated such things.

“This means someone could be tried using words and arguments that aren’t even their own,” said Nutz.

“Criminal decisions must be accurate, meticulous, and based only on proven facts against the person being tried,” she added.

This case originated from a shooting incident at Villa Casa Santisya, Munggu Village, Mengwi, Badung, in the early hours of 14 June 2025. Two Australian citizens, Zivan Radmanovic (33) and Sanar Ghanim (34), became victims in the attack.

Zivan Radmanovic was shot while in the toilet and died. Meanwhile, Sanar Ghanim, who was shot in the room, survived although his leg and hand were injured. After carrying out the act, the perpetrators fled on a motorbike.