Legal Research
Cases
Delich v The Queen

Delich v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 66 11 April 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Guilty Plea

Premeditated Offending

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0127
DENIS DELICH	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE, NEAVE JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 April 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 66
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2013] VSC 309 (Lasry J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years – Guilty plea – Premeditated offending – Voluntary surrender to police – Absence of remorse – Applicant suffered from chronic depression and anxiety – Applicant 62 years of age – Sentence was within range of sentences available in all circumstances – Applicant bore a significant degree of moral culpability – Applicant’s condition not such as to require significant moderation of the need for specific deterrence – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P J Morrissey SC	Emma Turnbull & Associates
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA

NEAVE JA
SIFRIS AJA:

On 29 January 2013, the applicant, Denis Delich (now aged 62) pleaded guilty to one charge of murder before Coghlan JA. Following a plea before Lasry J on 27 March and 15 May 2013, the applicant was sentenced on 14 June 2013 to 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence.

Circumstances surrounding the offending

The deceased (Almasa Locic) was the applicant’s wife for 23 years before a separation in 1997 and a divorce in 2002. The applicant and the deceased had two sons, Eddie and Dean. It is the breakdown of the marriage that provides the background to the offending.

In 1984, the applicant and the deceased purchased a property at 32 Bertrand Avenue, Mulgrave (‘the family home’). These were the premises near where the killing of the deceased took place.

Following the divorce in 2002, the applicant purchased the deceased’s share in the family home. The deceased moved to a unit in Noble Park North. However, the applicant believed that the family home was too big for him so the deceased sold her unit to her son, Dean, and purchased the family home back from the applicant. The deceased and Eddie moved into the family home and the applicant moved into Eddie’s home in Endeavour Hills.

In early 2009, conflict arose between the applicant and his sons in respect of money that the applicant believed his sons owed him. This conflict became violent to a degree. Tensions between the applicant and his sons continued and in February 2009 the applicant telephoned the deceased from outside her home and demanded that she send Eddie and Dean outside. The applicant stated to the deceased that she should not come outside because he did not want her to see what was going to happen. Ultimately, police were called and the…

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 Delich v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Delich v The Queen [2014] VSCA 66
Case: [2014] VSCA 66
Decision Date: 11 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Delich v The Queen involved the applicant appealing against his sentence for murder. Delich, aged 62 at the time of sentencing, had pleaded guilty to the premeditated murder of his wife. He surrendered voluntarily to police and displayed no remorse. The High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the applicant's chronic depression and anxiety should have warranted a significant moderation of his sentence, given his age and mental health conditions.

The legal issues at hand were the appropriate weight to be given to Delich's mental health issues in determining the sentence and whether the 20-year imprisonment term, with a non-parole period of 16 years, was justified. The court examined whether Delich's mental health issues warranted a significant reduction in the need for specific deterrence and general deterrence. The High Court considered the applicant's significant degree of moral culpability and the fact that his condition did not necessitate a significant moderation of the need for specific deterrence.

The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences available in all circumstances, taking into account Delich's age, mental health issues, and the nature of the offence. The High Court found that while Delich's mental health issues were a relevant consideration, they did not warrant a significant reduction in the need for specific deterrence and general deterrence. The application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The sentence of 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years was upheld.

Orders