R v Delich - [2013] VSC 309

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0027 of 2012

THE QUEEN

DENIS DELICH

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27 March 2013, 15 May 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 June 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Delich
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 309

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Guilty plea – Premeditated offending – Voluntary surrender to police – Guilty plea at earliest opportunity – Absence of remorse – Sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Goetz	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Emma Turnbull

HIS HONOUR:

Denis Delich, on 29 January 2013 you pleaded guilty before Coghlan J to murdering Almasa Locic. That murder took place on 1 November 2011 near premises in Bertrand Avenue, Mulgrave. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The factual circumstances

The deceased was your wife and had been for 23 years before a separation in 1997 and a divorce in 2002. The marriage produced two sons, Edin, known as Eddie, and Dean. The breakdown of your marriage provides the factual background and motivation for what occurred on 1 November 2011.

Having married in 1975, the relevant events began in 1984 when you and your wife purchased the property at 32 Bertrand Avenue, Mulgrave, the premises near where this killing occurred. You and the deceased lived in those premises and your children grew up there. The separation between you and your wife in 1996 is said to have occurred against suggestions of your gambling and also the prospect of her having had an extra-marital relationship with a family friend. It was in 1997 that the separation between you became permanent, and as I earlier noted you were divorced in 2002.

Following the divorce you retained the property at 32 Bertrand Avenue, Mulgrave having paid out to the deceased her share in the property. She moved to a unit in Noble Park North, but the divorce and her movement to those premises did not end her contact with you. Ultimately, you wanted her to move back into the family home because the home was too big for you. She sold her unit to your son Dean and purchased the family home back from you. She and your other son, Eddie, moved into the house. You, in turn, moved to Eddie’s home, a property in Endeavour Hills.

In 2009, there was conflict between you and your sons over a demand you made of them for money expended on raising them during their lives. That conflict became violent to some degree, and the tension and difficulties continued. Later in February 2009, you wrote a letter to your son Eddie demanding the transfer of the title to the house he owned in Endeavour Hills, as well as a motor car to you. There was then a conversation in which you told him to…

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 Delich

Details

AGLC: R v Delich [2013] VSC 309
Case: [2013] VSC 309
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Delich was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Delich, was charged with the murder of an individual. Delich had pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The prosecution and defence presented arguments regarding the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and the defendant’s conduct.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Delich, considering the premeditated nature of the offence, the absence of remorse, and the defendant’s voluntary surrender to police and guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. The court also had to consider the totality of the circumstances and the principles of sentencing for murder in Victoria.

In determining the sentence, the court acknowledged the premeditated nature of the crime and the absence of remorse as significant aggravating factors. However, the court also recognised the defendant's voluntary surrender and timely guilty plea as mitigating factors. After weighing these considerations, the court imposed a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court concluded that this sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances and the need to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court's final orders included a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years for the defendant, Delich, for the offence of murder. The court’s decision reflects the careful consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence for this serious crime.

Orders