R v D'Aloisio - [2006] VSC 216

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1559 of 2005

THE QUEEN

DOUGLAS D’ALOISIO

---

JUDGE:	EAMES, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 & 23 May 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 June 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v. D’Aloisio
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 216

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Death of six week old son due to assaults by father – Mental illness – Father suffering obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality disorder – Sentence 8 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 5 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K. Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Allen S.C. with Ms. M. Tittensor	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Douglas D’Aloisio, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter and I must now sentence you for that offence.

On 22 February 2005 your son Jackson Bailey D’Aloisio died at your hands. He was your second child, your wife having given birth to him on 11 January 2005. He was some six weeks old when his life ended. You had commenced to assault him when he was about three weeks old, causing him to suffer multiple fractures. On the last day of his life you repeatedly assaulted your son, as a result of which he suffered fatal head injuries.

You were originally charged with murder, but at an early stage offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. After initially refusing to accept that plea the Director of Public Prosecutions has now done so, accepting that when you committed this offence you were suffering from a serious psychiatric illness, that being the unanimous opinion of a psychiatrist and two psychologists, whose evidence was placed before the Court. The plea of guilty to manslaughter is made by you, and accepted by the prosecution, on the basis that your son’s death arose out of an unlawful and dangerous act or acts, but that when you assaulted your son you did not intend to kill him or to cause him really serious injury. During submissions on the plea the prosecutor has conceded that because you suffered serious mental illness at the time of your son’s death it would be inappropriate to apply the full weight of the principles of general or specific deterrence to your case.

Given these considerations, and applying well established sentencing principles, the sentence which I will impose will be substantially less than would have been imposed had you not been suffering mental illness at the time of the offence.

Your mental illness, however, is not the whole explanation for your conduct. By your plea, you admit that when you assaulted your son you knew the nature and quality of the acts you were performing, and that they were wrong. The expert evidence confirms that awareness on your part. As your counsel frankly acknowledged, the death of a defenceless child is…

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 R v D'Aloisio

Details

AGLC: R v D'Aloisio [2006] VSC 216
Case: [2006] VSC 216
Decision Date: 20 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v D'Aloisio involved the defendant, D'Aloisio, who was charged with the manslaughter of his six-week-old son. The tragic incident occurred due to severe assaults inflicted by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his mental health conditions, namely obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality disorder.

The court had to consider the severity of the crime, the defendant's mental health issues, and the impact of these factors on his culpability and the risk of reoffending. The court recognised that D'Aloisio's mental disorders significantly impaired his capacity to control his actions, which was a mitigating factor in sentencing. However, the gravity of the offence, involving the death of an infant, necessitated a substantial punishment. The court also examined the need for general and specific deterrence, and the protection of society.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the profound impact of the defendant's mental disorders but found that the death of the infant warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court imposed a term of 8 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the mitigating circumstances of the defendant's mental health.

Orders