BREE DELLAMARTA FACES SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER AFTER STABBING HER BOYFRIEND FOR CALLING HER ABUSIVE

R v Dellamarta [2021] VSC 220 (4 May 2021)

This is a sentencing case against the accused charged with manslaughter for stabbing his partner once to the chest.  It has been alleged that the accused has a lifelong intellectual disability and persistent depressive disorder.

Facts:

Bree Dellamarta, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mark Ward by stabbing him once to the chest with a knife. Mr Ward was her partner. The offense took place in the kitchen of her home in Heidelberg West at about midnight when Mr Ward, who did not live with you, was staying overnight.

Sometime in the hour before midnight Mr Ward got up and came to the kitchen, to have a cigarette. An argument, loud enough for a neighbor to hear, developed. She picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed Mr Ward once to the upper chest. He collapsed to the floor. The knife penetrated his chest to a depth of 100mm, passing through his heart.

At 12:02am, she telephoned 000 and requested an ambulance. Both police and paramedics attended. She was arrested and taken to the Heidelberg police station. She admitted to stabbing Mr Ward, but were unable to say why she had done so. She said that she had never been scared that he would physically hurt her, but she had called him abusive and hurtful names.

The issue of moral culpability for her offending is complicated by her intellectual disability and persistent depressive disorder. The evidence is that both her intellectual disability and persistent depressive disorder were active at the relevant time.  Each condition resulted in alterations to your mental functioning.

The maximum penalty for this crime is 20 years

Issue: What should the sentence of the accused be?

Held:

First, her use of a knife. In a deliberate action, she plunged a large kitchen knife into the upper chest of Mr Ward. Second, he was her partner and the incident occurred in her home. Mr Ward was naked, unarmed and vulnerable. Third, she lashed out in anger. While the details of the argument remain somewhat unclear, she grossly over-reacted to whatever feelings of hurt and anger she was experiencing in the face of Mr Ward’s aggression. She told the police that she did not feel physically threatened by him. Fourth, when Mr Ward collapsed, she immediately attempted to revive him. She called 000 and followed the instructions given. She allowed the police entry to her home. She participated in a lengthy record of interview with police and made significant admissions as to her behavior.

Her depressive disorder is characterized by long-term lowered mood associated with a slowing of cognitive processes, difficulty generating solutions and challenges implementing desired actions to solve problems. Her intellectual disability results in a reduced capacity for problem solving and generalized deficits in social skills, conflict-management skills and problem solving.

Accordingly, both her moral culpability for her offending and the relevance of general deterrence is somewhat reduced.

Specific deterrence is a more difficult consideration. The court accepts that she is genuinely remorseful for her offending. Her actions demonstrate this. She called 000 immediately. She was cooperative with police. She pleaded guilty to this offence immediately after the issue of fitness to stand trial was resolved.

The court also takes into account her plea of guilty. She was initially charged with murder. The question of her fitness to stand trial was properly raised. Once determined, she offered to plead guilty to manslaughter.  In the circumstances, the court treats her plea as being early.

Conclusion: The court sentences the accused to imprisonment for seven years and six months. She must serve a minimum of five years before being eligible for parole.

#SentencingLaw