De Angelis v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 279

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0232

MARC DE ANGELIS	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE, OSBORN and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	21 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	21 November 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 279
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v De Angelis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gullaci, 19 September 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW − Application for leave appeal to against sentence − Intentionally causing injury − Sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment, with non-parole period of eight months − Whether sentence manifestly excessive − Low intellectual functioning − History of substance abuse and mental illness with possible acquired brain injury − Totality − Application dismissed − No point of principle.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Chaudhuri	Michael Smith Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr G J C Silbert S.C.	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA:

The applicant, Marc De Angelis, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight months, which was imposed on him following a County Court jury verdict finding him guilty of intentionally causing injury to Rachel Green.[1] The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[1]He was acquitted of charges of intentionally causing serious injury and recklessly causing serious injury.

The victim, who is deaf and communicates through sign language, had been the applicant’s friend for several years. On 31 August 2011, Ms Green visited the applicant at his home, where they drank wine together and watched television. She was sitting on the applicant’s bed the next morning, when the applicant came into the room and, without warning, punched her several times in the face. He then got on top of her holding a carving knife and attempted to stab her. The victim grabbed the knife, cut her hand and broke free from the applicant. She then jumped out of a window in the lounge room, and ran to another house where an ambulance was called. She suffered facial bruising, and had cuts on her hands and fingers.

In his record of interview, the applicant said that he had had a minor argument with the victim, who was very drunk. He claimed that she chased him around the lounge room, before jumping out of the window. He denied punching her, being violent towards her, or using the knife in the way she described. The police later found a carving knife under the applicant’s bed. It was conceded during the trial that the victim’s blood was on the knife blade.

His Honour’s reasons

In his reasons, the learned sentencing judge noted that the applicant was aged 45 years, and had ‘a long history of alcohol and drug abuse’, and currently had ‘a number of significant health issues’.[2]
[2]DPP v De Angelis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gullaci, 19 September 2012) (‘Reasons’) [7].

His Honour referred to a 2006 report prepared…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading De Angelis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: De Angelis v The Queen [2012] VSCA 279
Case: [2012] VSCA 279
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of De Angelis v The Queen, the appellant, De Angelis, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. De Angelis was convicted of intentionally causing injury to a police officer. The sentence handed down was one year and two months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight months. The appellant contended that his sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account his low intellectual functioning, history of substance abuse and mental illness, and possible acquired brain injury. The court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was a point of principle that warranted leave to appeal.

The court examined the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the appellant's criminal history. The court also noted that the appellant had a history of reoffending and had shown little remorse for his actions. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and that there was no point of principle that warranted leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and took into account the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's personal circumstances. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that there was no point of principle that warranted leave to appeal. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders