JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 February 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 March 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Coman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 159

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Of separated domestic partner – Fatal stab wound to the back, damaging spinal cord – Motivated by anger largely attributable to delusional beliefs as to partner’s infidelity - Deceased the mother of two young children and 12 weeks pregnant – Early plea of guilty – Genuine remorse – Diagnosis of psychotic depression – Causal connection between illness and offending – Accused still understood nature, quality and wrongfulness of actions - Some reduction in moral culpability and general deterrence – Moral culpability remained high, and general deterrence remained important – Serious offending – Head sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Dr Nanette Rogers SC	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms Amy Brennan	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Benjamin Coman, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your partner, Michelle Darragh on 9 October 2021.

In the knowledge that Ms Darragh was intending to leave the relationship with you, in circumstances upon which I will later expand, you attacked her out of the blue in the home she had shared with you, stabbing her three times with a large kitchen knife. One of your thrusts with the knife entered Ms Darragh’s back, proceeded upwards and deep into her chest and neck, entering the spinal canal and severely damaging her spinal cord. This injury would have led to the immediate incapacitation and rapid death of Ms Darragh.

When Ms Darragh died, she left behind the two young children she shared with you. In addition, she was, as you well knew, 12 weeks pregnant at the time of her death. Her loss is a tragedy for her, her unborn child, her children, her wider family and friends, and the community of which she was such an important part. The crime you committed which wrought such devastation, involving as it did a vicious attack upon a defenceless and helpless woman in respect of whom you were in a position of trust, can readily be seen to be a very serious instance of the crime of murder.

Background

Ms Darragh (‘Michelle’) was the second youngest of four children born to her parents Ashley and Dianne Darragh. She grew up in a close and loving family, and was described by her sister Samantha Darragh (‘Samantha’) as ‘a beautiful girl with a heart of gold and always worried about other people before herself’ and ‘a very caring person who had a beautiful soul’. No doubt her kind and caring disposition sent her in the direction of a career in social work. She obtained her…

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 DPP v Coman

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Coman [2023] VSC 159
Case: [2023] VSC 159
Decision Date: 31 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Coman, the defendant was charged with the murder of his separated domestic partner, who was stabbed in the back causing fatal injuries to her spinal cord. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. This involved balancing the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's genuine remorse, early guilty plea, and his mental illness at the time of the offence, against the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence.

The court considered the causal connection between the defendant’s psychotic depression and his offending behaviour, but ultimately concluded that this did not absolve him of moral responsibility. The court acknowledged the defendant's mental illness influenced his actions but found that he still understood the nature, quality, and wrongfulness of his actions. The court recognised a partial reduction in moral culpability and the need for general deterrence, but determined that these factors did not significantly mitigate the gravity of the offence. The court found that the defendant's moral culpability remained high, and the importance of general deterrence was paramount.

After weighing all the factors, the court imposed a head sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for the offence of murder, with a non-parole period of 20 years. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the mitigating circumstances and the overarching need to uphold justice and ensure public safety. The final orders of the court mandated the defendant's imprisonment for the determined period, subject to the usual conditions of parole eligibility after serving the non-parole period.

Orders