Legal Research
Cases
R v Dellamarta

R v Dellamarta

Case [2021] VSC 220 4 May 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0124

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
BREE DELLAMARTA	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 April 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dellamarta
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 220

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Accused stabbed partner once to the chest – Accused has lifelong intellectual disability and persistent depressive disorder – Whether Verdins principles applicable – No causal connection between disability and disorder and offending – Disability otherwise relevant – Resulting moderation of general and specific deterrence – Disability relevant to burden of imprisonment – Sentence of seven years and six months imprisonment with non-parole period of five years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Glynn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J Munster	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Bree Dellamarta, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mark Ward by stabbing him once to the chest with a knife on 24 January 2020.

The maximum penalty for this crime is 20 years.[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 Crimes Act 1958, s 5).

Summary of Offending

Mr Ward was your partner. The offence took place in the kitchen of your home in Heidelberg West at about midnight when Mr Ward, who did not live with you, was staying overnight.

The details of the offence remain somewhat opaque. Your motive in acting as you did is unclear. But, it is clear that you stabbed Mr Ward in anger after an argument.

On 23 January 2020 you returned to your home at about 4:00pm after finishing your shift at the Sycamore Tree café in Heidelberg. That café is a social enterprise operated by the Banyule network of Uniting Churches. Your work there was voluntary. You have an intellectual disability and relied upon the Disability Support Pension for income. I will return to the relevance of your disability below.

Mr Ward was already at your home. He had prepared an alcoholic drink for you in anticipation of your arrival. Over the next few hours you both drank alcohol.

At about 6.30pm you arrived together by taxi at the RSL Club in Heidelberg West. You went to meet your sister and her partner. It seems that it was your custom to socialise with them at that club on a Thursday evening. During your time there you and Mr Ward both consumed more alcohol. He was drinking VB stubbies. You later told police that you drank about six glasses of Canadian club whisky and ginger ale. The atmosphere was apparently convivial. Mr Ward was in a good mood following a win on the poker machines. Your sister and her partner drove you and Mr Ward home at about 8.30 pm.

After getting home, you had about another two…

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 Dellamarta

Details

AGLC: R v Dellamarta [2021] VSC 220
Case: [2021] VSC 220
Decision Date: 4 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Dellamarta, was charged with manslaughter following an incident where he stabbed his partner once to the chest. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the accused’s lifelong intellectual disability and persistent depressive disorder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the principles articulated in Verdins should be applied to moderate the sentence due to the accused’s intellectual disability and mental health condition. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a causal connection between these conditions and the offence, and if so, whether this would warrant a reduction in sentence. The court also needed to consider the broader impacts of the disability on the accused’s culpability and the effectiveness of punishment.

The court found that while there was no causal link between the accused’s conditions and the offence, his intellectual disability was nonetheless relevant to the sentencing process. This disability impacted the accused’s capacity for general and specific deterrence, as well as the burden that imprisonment would impose on him. Considering these factors, the court imposed a sentence of seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, reflecting a moderated approach due to the disability.

The final orders of the court included the aforementioned sentence and directed that the accused be placed under a mental health order to ensure appropriate care and support during his incarceration.

Orders