R v Walsh, Daniel Jason

Case [2001] VSC 350


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1406 of 2001

THE QUEEN
v
DANIEL JASON WALSH

---

JUDGE:

Teague  J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

20-31 August, 3-6 September 2001

DATE OF SENTENCE:

18 September 2001

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Daniel Jason Walsh

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2001] VSC 350

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – Premeditated shooting related to use of heroin – Youth and other mitigating factors – Sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr G. Horgan S.C.
with Mr M. Tinney
Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mr J. Kaufman Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

  1. Daniel Walsh, you have been convicted by a jury of the murder of Craig Isoldi at Preston on 8 May 1999.

  1. You had known the deceased for some years.  In and before May 1999 both you and the deceased were using and addicted to heroin.  He was selling heroin, mainly in Collingwood, during the day.  From time to time you bought heroin from him.  For evening purchases, you had organised with him a meeting place in Preston.  It was close to the intersection of Gilbert Road and Miller Street.  You drove there and he walked there. 

  1. The nature of heroin and heroin trading is such that the trading can easily generate suspicion between buyer and seller. Your thinking was affected by your addiction, and your suspicions.  You were to claim, after you killed the deceased, that, on a sale of heroin, he had ripped you off.  You decided to shoot the deceased using a .22 rifle that you had acquired from another drug user.

  1. On 8 May 1999, you arranged to meet Craig Isoldi at the usual meeting place.  You met him there shortly after 7 p.m..  Shortly after that, you shot him once to the right side of the head.  You then left his body on the roadway in Stott Street, Preston.  In the period of days and weeks that followed, you did and said a number of things that were, in part a form of boasting about what you had done, and in part a means of seeking to mislead others as to what you had done.  There were some clear admissions as to the shooting.  You also told a lot of lies, first to friends and later to the police.  The lies included that certain Asians had killed the deceased, and that you had information as to who they were.  The lies also included that you had never had a .22 rifle, and that you had been with your mother at the time that the deceased was shot.

  1. There are a number of mitigating circumstances that I must take into account, and I will shortly come to them.  But I must note that I treat the murder as the more serious because it was premeditated.

  1. I have read the victim impact statements of Stephanie Thompson, Karen Isoldi and John Isoldi.  I have done so carefully, reflectively and  more than once.  They have suffered great trauma from the death of Craig Isoldi.  They are understandably especially troubled by the senselessness of his death.  The statements make it clear that his death has led to what are for them, life-changing consequences.

  1. You are 24 years of age, having been born on 15 September 1976.  You are one of a family of four, all of whom have had problems with the use of illegal drugs.  You have been raised principally by your mother.  Your grandparents had much to say in your favour before me.  I have given their comments the respect that they deserved.  You have some prior convictions.  None was for a crime of violence or led to a term of imprisonment.  You have a good work record.  The indications, from the certificates from prison during the period of your pre-sentence detention are, that you have been commendably willing to work towards rehabilitation from an early stage.  In fixing the term of your imprisonment I have recognised the mitigating factors and particularly your youth, the good signs as to the prospect of rehabilitation, and the circumstance that your involvement with heroin had dulled your sensibility to the seriousness of what you were doing.

  1. I declare that you have served 474 days in pre-sentence detention.  I direct that that figure be entered in the court records.  I sentence you to imprisonment for 18 years.  I fix a non-parole period of 14 years.

---

Details
AGLC
R v Walsh, Daniel Jason [2001] VSC 350
Case
[2001] VSC 350
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walsh, Daniel Jason was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Daniel Jason Walsh, was convicted of murder for the premeditated shooting of an individual during a dispute related to the use of heroin. The primary issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence, taking into account various mitigating factors, including the youth of the offender and the circumstances surrounding the crime.

The court was tasked with weighing the severity of the offence against the mitigating factors presented. These factors included Walsh's age at the time of the offence, his limited criminal history, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact of drug addiction on Walsh's actions and his remorse for the crime. The prosecution argued for a severe sentence to reflect the gravity of the premeditated nature of the murder, while the defence urged the court to consider the mitigating circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence. However, it also recognised the significant mitigating factors in Walsh's case. The court found that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court sentenced Walsh to 18 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for Walsh to contribute positively to society upon his release.

The final orders of the court were that Daniel Jason Walsh be imprisoned for 18 years, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The sentence reflected a balanced approach, considering both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.