R v Volpe - [2018] VSC 797

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0084

THE QUEEN

DANNY NOEL VOLPE

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 December 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Volpe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 797

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Single stab wound to chest – Offender only knew victim for two days – Motive unclear – Trial – Guilty verdict – Satisfied intended to cause really serious injury – Lower end of gravity – Drug use – Traumatic childhood – Post traumatic stress disorder – Verdins principles – Moderated weight to specific and general deterrence – Custody more onerous – Punishment – Denunciation – Relevant criminal history – Prospects of rehabilitation open – Sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 15 years – Crimes Act 1958 – Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Flynn QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Danny Noel Volpe, on 26 June 2018, you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Cameron Harris on 17 September 2016. The verdict followed a trial that began on 8 May 2018.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for the murder of Mr Harris. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Circumstances of the offending

Mr Harris was born in Lilydale in Victoria on 19 July 1977. He was 39 years old when you murdered him. He was the youngest of four children and grew up in the Yarra Valley region, living with his family in Healesville and attending school in Yarra Junction.

In his adult years Mr Harris lived predominantly in the Dandenong area, where he worked a variety of labouring jobs. He was a father to one child, a daughter, who was in her mid-teens at the time of his death.

You were introduced to Mr Harris by Paul Bugeja, a mutual friend, a few days before his death. After the introduction, you spent the following days in each other’s company. On occasions, you were both together at Mr Bugeja’s property in Montrose. This property had become something of a halfway house, with a number of people living there, and coming and going on a transient basis.

By the early morning of 17 September 2016, you and Mr Harris had fallen out. You were observed at the Montrose property to be angry with him. You told those present that Mr Harris had threatened your family. Around mid-morning that day, you told occupants at the house, including Mr Bugeja, that you had ‘bashed’ Mr Harris, also stating, ‘I’m gonna knock this cunt’.

At approximately 11.30am, you drove a blue Ford Laser registered to one of your sons to the Arndale Shopping Centre in Croydon. Mr Harris was also there, and you and he started fighting in the carpark.…

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 Volpe

Details

AGLC: R v Volpe [2018] VSC 797
Case: [2018] VSC 797
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Volpe, the accused was found guilty of murder by the County Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from the stabbing death of a 26-year-old woman, with the key issue being the appropriate sentence for the crime. The defendant, who had only known the victim for two days at the time of the offence, inflicted a single stab wound to the victim's chest, resulting in her death. The motive behind the stabbing remained unclear throughout the trial.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account various factors. These included the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the offender's background. The court considered whether the offender intended to cause really serious injury, the gravity of the offence, the offender's drug use, a traumatic childhood, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The court also applied the principles established in Verdins, weighing specific and general deterrence, the punitive aspects of custody, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The court found that the offender intended to cause really serious injury, placing the offence at the lower end of gravity. It also noted the offender's drug use, traumatic childhood, and post-traumatic stress disorder. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced the offender to 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court found that the sentence reflected the need for punishment, denunciation, and deterrence while also considering the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. The court concluded that a sentence at the lower end of the gravity was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the offender be detained in custody until the non-parole period of 15 years is reached. After that time, the offender will be eligible for parole, subject to the conditions set by the Parole Board of Victoria. The court also ordered that the offender be subject to any other conditions deemed appropriate by the court or the Parole Board.

Orders