DPP v Treasure - [2020] VSC 402

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0316

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
DANIEL JOHN TREASURE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Treasure
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 402

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Pursuant to s 3A Crimes Act 1958 – Accused and co-offender lured victim to location intending armed robbery of him – Both offenders armed with knives – Victim and girlfriend both attacked and stabbed – Not clear which offender responsible for fatal wound – Plea of guilty – Prior convictions – Standard sentence scheme – Sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms C Foot	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S Keating with Mr M Radzaj	Slades & Parsons Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

John Treasure, on 24 October 2019 before Justice Taylor, you pleaded guilty to the murder of Felk Repia. The offending may be summarised as follows. The plea to murder is on the basis that Mr Repia was stabbed during a struggle outside the entry of a residential property at 29 Wilson Street, Berwick, during the course of an armed robbery.

Mr Repia was killed by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime, the elements of which included violence. You and your co-accused, Matthew William Coghlan (‘Coghlan’), were intending to commit an armed robbery and you were each in possession of a knife.

The two of you intended to rob drugs from Mr Repia. The Wilson Street address is a communal housing complex at which neither Mr Repia or either of you resided. This location was chosen by you as the meeting place with Mr Repia to rob him.

Messages were exchanged between you and Mr Repia in the lead up to the offence that showed that you arranged to meet and you believed that Mr Repia would be in the possession of drugs. You held yourself out to be a woman named ‘Nikki’ in the messages to Mr Repia.

Closed Circuit Television (‘CCTV’) cameras are located at the residence. There was an infrared camera placed externally to the front of the building covering the driveway and a second internal camera capturing the front door. The prosecution had intended to play the CCTV footage at the plea but it was not possible to do so. I viewed the footage a number of times and in summary it shows the following:

(a) Mr Repia and Victoria Meakins (‘Meakins’) arriving in the car park and walking to the front door of the residence.

(b) Mr Repia has a computer tablet in his hand.

(c) You arriving in the driveway with Coghlan following behind and walking to the front door.

(d) Coghlan is seen to be walking…

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 Treasure

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Treasure [2020] VSC 402
Case: [2020] VSC 402
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Treasure arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Treasure, pleaded guilty to his participation in a joint criminal enterprise with a co-offender that resulted in the murder of a victim during an intended armed robbery. Both Treasure and his co-offender were armed with knives when they lured the victim and his girlfriend to a secluded location. During the attack, both victims were stabbed, and it remains unclear which offender inflicted the fatal wound. Treasure entered a guilty plea and faced sentencing, taking into account his prior criminal history. The Crown proposed a sentence within the parameters of the standard sentence scheme under section 3A of the Crimes Act 1958, which mandates a starting point for murder of life imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Treasure, considering the nature of the crime, the role of the defendant, and his criminal history. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. The defence argued for a lesser sentence on the grounds that Treasure's role in the fatal stabbing was not definitively established, while the Crown urged a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence and the premeditated nature of the crime. The court also needed to consider the statutory guidelines and the principle that the sentence should reflect the culpability of the offender.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime and the significant culpability of Treasure in the planning and execution of the armed robbery that led to the victim's death. The court found that despite the uncertainty about which offender inflicted the fatal blow, Treasure's participation in the joint criminal enterprise and his prior criminal history warranted a substantial custodial sentence. The court imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The sentence also considered the potential for rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offence.

The court made an order that Treasure be imprisoned for a total of 20 years, with a non-parole period of 14 years. This decision ensures that Treasure will be subject to significant penal consequences for his role in the crime, while also leaving room for the possibility of parole should he demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation and reform. The sentence reflects the court's assessment of the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders