When three Australian men were sentenced over the murder of a fourth man – Melbourne father Zivan Radmanovic – the courtroom erupted into chaos as the victim’s family howled.
The source of their pain and frustration?
The seemingly “light sentences” handed down to the perpetrators this month after they were found guilty of gunning down Mr Radmanovic at an upscale villa in Bali’s Badung District in the early hours of June 14 last year.
For taking Mr Radmanovic’s life, co-defendants Mevlut Coskun, 22, and Paea I Middlemore Tupou, 27, received 16-year prison terms. A third man, Darcy Francesco Jenson, 24, was sentenced to 12 years behind bars for his role in assisting with what the Indonesian judges agreed was a premeditated murder.
As the verdicts were read out at Denpasar District Court in Bali, Mr Radmanovic’s wife, Jazmyn Gourdeas, burst into tears and had to be comforted by relatives, including the victim’s eldest son.
Ms Gourdeas had been present at the villa when the shooting happened and had cowered in terror under a blanket to avoid detection.
Another Australian national, Sanar Ghanim, was also injured when the men opened fire at the villa, but survived. It was thought that Mr Ghanim had been the actual target of the three men, who claimed they were working for someone else who wanted Mr Ghanim to repay a debt.
Following the verdict on March 9, Sary Latief, a lawyer representing the family, told local media that Mr Radmanovic’s loved ones were shocked.
“The family sees this as a joke,” Ms Latief said.
“Initially, the charges mentioned the death penalty, then prosecutors demanded 18 years, and now it has been reduced to 16 years. The family is very disappointed.
“They feel that taking someone’s life appears too easy in Bali if the punishment is like this.”
According to reports, the family had hoped that the perpetrators would receive the death penalty by firing squad – the maximum possible sentence for premeditated murder in Indonesia.
It was not just the family who was confused.
Following the shocking verdict, Australian social media users left comments across a range of platforms and underneath news articles, asking why the sentences had been so light when other Aussies abroad have faced harsher penalties for other crimes.
These included convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for importing 4.2kg of cannabis into Bali in 2005.
The same year Corby was sentenced, a group of Aussies dubbed the “Bali Nine” were arrested for attempting to smuggle 8.3kg of heroin from Bali to Australia.
The so-called “ringleaders” of the drug smuggling plot, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, were both executed by firing squad in Indonesia in 2015.
The other members of the drug ring all received sentences of between 20 years to life imprisonment, although six members were eventually released and returned to Australia, while another died in prison in Bali in 2018.
According to the Bali-based Malekat International Law Firm, drug crimes in Indonesia are often positioned as the most serious, with narcotics considered both a threat to society and the state.
“Narcotics are viewed not simply as individual crimes, but crimes with broad, systemic impacts, and the potential to damage the nation,” the firm told news.com.au.
“This stems from the view that drug trafficking generally involves organised, transnational networks and has long-term, destructive effects on public health, social stability, and even national resilience.”
This is why Indonesia has long adopted a “deterrent” approach to drug crime, with severe penalties including the death penalty and life imprisonment for anyone caught with large quantities of narcotics in the country.
Dr Zulkarnain Nasution, a lecturer in drug crime at Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara University, told news.com.au that narcotics often appear to be treated more harshly in Indonesia, especially in cases involving dealers and large networks.
“This is rooted in the state’s view of the nature of the damage they cause. Murder is understood as a crime with a direct and individual impact. It is a single incident and a single victim, albeit a very serious crime.”
“Narcotics are seen as a latent, organised crime with a broad impact. There are strong social and moral dimensions to it. In the context of Indonesia’s religious and communal society, narcotics are seen as damaging not only physically but also mentally, morally, and socially.
“This damage is multidimensional and ongoing, making it more dangerous in the long term than single-offence crimes, such as individual murder.”
However, he added that murder and drug crimes are actually of equal severity.
“Premeditated murder is punishable by death under the Indonesian Criminal Code, as are certain drug crimes. This means that there is no explicit statement that drugs are ‘more serious’ than murder.”
Under Indonesian law, the death penalty can be handed down for a strict range of crimes including drug trafficking, terrorism, corruption, gross human rights violations, treason and premeditated murder.
Yet, if both the prosecution and the judges in the case agreed that Mr Radmanovic’s death was premeditated murder, why did the defendants escape the death penalty or life imprisonment?
According to experts, the sentencing was not solely determined by the loss of life, but also depended heavily on the evidence presented during the trial.
“In criminal law, judges are bound by the principle that a person can only be convicted if all elements of the crime are legally and convincingly proven,” the Malekat International Law Firm said.
In cases such as premeditated murder, judges can slash prison time if they are not convinced that all these elements have been met, the firm added.
And, in this case, one key question remains.
Did the three perpetrators actually mean to kill Mr Radmanovic when they went to his villa on that chaotic night?
In the defendants’ telling, Mr Radmanovic’s death had been accidental when he was shot during a melee at the villa but, according to an autopsy report, the Melbourne man had suffered severe blunt force trauma before his death and had been shot three times.
The 32-year-old had been in Bali to celebrate his wife’s birthday and, according to the Indonesian prosecution, Jenson had been the mastermind of the attack while the other two defendants had carried it out. The three men argued in court that there had been no such plan, and that they had only meant to frighten Mr Ghanim, who was in debt to a shadowy Aussie figure referred to only as “Mr X”.
Mr Ghanim had been at the villa for Mr Radmanovic’s wife’s birthday party, as he was the partner of her sister.
Gandjar Laksmana, a lecturer in criminal law at the University of Indonesia, told news.com.au that, in his opinion, this case clearly constituted premeditated murder, and that it was a question for the prosecution as to why they “only” asked for an 18-year prison sentence.
“Was the prosecutor not confident in the evidence? In my opinion, it should be a life sentence or 20 years in prison,” Mr Laksmana said.
“16 years in prison is not a light sentence, but it is disproportionate to the perpetrators’ actions, thus not reflecting justice.”
The prosecution in the case has said that it will appeal, which means that it is possible that the sentences for all three men may increase.
While it remains to be seen what will happen in this case, the Malekat International Law Firm said that, on paper, the initial verdict could be considered legally sound, but that the critical reaction from the public “could not be ignored”.
“The reaction to the sentences is understandable given the use of firearms and the alleged organised crime element,” it said.
“This raises the expectation that the act should be classified as premeditated murder which carries the maximum penalty.”
