Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Volpe

DPP v Volpe

Case [2021] VSC 353 18 June 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0084

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
DANNY NOEL VOLPE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 May 2021 and 7 June 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Volpe (Sentence - Manslaughter)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 353

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of Guilty – Single stab wound to chest – Offender aged 61 at date of sentence – Dysfunctional childhood including early exposure to hard drugs – Strong family support – Good prospects for rehabilitation – Sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years – Sentencing Act 1991, s 5, 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Danny Noel Volpe, on 30 April 2021, you pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Cameron Harris. On 17 September 2016, you stabbed Cameron Harris once in the chest resulting in his death. The maximum penalty applicable to your offending is 20 years imprisonment.[1]
[1]The maximum penalty for manslaughter has since increased to 25 years. See Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Act 2020, s 3 (amending the Crimes Act 1958, s 5).

You were arrested in September 2016, and you have been held on remand since then.

At your plea hearing the Crown tendered a Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea,[2] written plea submissions,[3] and three victim impact statements.[4]
[2]Dated 5 May 2021, Exhibit (‘EXH’) P1.
[3]‘Prosecution [sic] Submissions on Plea’, 11 May 2021 (‘Prosecution plea submissions’), EXH P2.
[4]Victim Impact Statement of Darren Harris dated 6 May 2021, EXH P3, Victim Impact Statement of Shardee Harris dated 8 October 2018, EXH P4; Victim Impact Statement of Tamara Brooks undated, EXH P5.

Circumstances of the offence

You met Cameron Harris on 15 September 2016, having been introduced by your friend Paul Bugeja. Cameron Harris was 39 years of age at that time and you were 57.

On the morning of 17 September 2016, you were at Paul Bugeja’s home in Montrose. Paul Bugeja lived there with a number of other associates. At about 10:30am, Paul Bugeja woke up and overheard you telling one such associate,[5] that you had bashed Cameron Harris because you were sick of Cameron Harris being smart and rude.
[5]Matthew Fimister.

Later that day, at around 12:20pm, Cameron Harris telephoned Paul Bugeja and seemed to be upset. Shortly afterwards, at around 1:10pm, Paul Bugeja, driving his blue utility, (‘the blue ute’) picked up Cameron Harris from an agreed location. The pair then drove around together for about an hour. They had lunch and returned to Paul Bugeja’s Montrose address at around 2:18pm. Paul Bugeja parked the blue ute outside his house. He saw you standing on the nature strip, rummaging through a pile of belongings.

Paul Bugeja and Cameron Harris were talking…

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 Volpe

Details

AGLC: R v Volpe (Sentence Manslaughter) [2021] VSC 353
Case: [2021] VSC 353
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Volpe was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant challenged his sentence for manslaughter. The appellant, aged 61 at the time of sentencing, had pleaded guilty to stabbing his victim fatally in the chest. The appeal centred on the length and severity of the sentence imposed, which included a term of nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence and whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the primary judge had not sufficiently taken into account his age, his dysfunctional upbringing, which included early exposure to hard drugs, and the strong family support available to him, all of which were mitigating factors. Additionally, the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation were deemed good by the primary judge.

The court found that the primary judge had indeed considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's age, background, and family support, as well as his prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that while the appellant's background was indeed a mitigating factor, it was balanced against the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court further found that the sentence was neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to uphold the deterrence and denunciation functions of sentencing.

Orders