Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Daing

DPP v Daing

Case [2016] VSCA 58 31 March 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0177

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
ISAC AYOUL DAING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 March 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 58
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Daing (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice T Forrest, 24 August 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Crown Appeal — Sentence — Murder — Brutal attack on former partner — Use of a weapon — Respondent suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of traumatic upbringing in Sudan — Whether sentencing judge erred in finding limited remorse — Whether sentence manifestly inadequate — Sentence of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years and 6 months not manifestly inadequate — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr C Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr L Hartnett and Ms S Keating	Revill & Papa Lawyers

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Priest JA. I too would dismiss the appeal for the reasons his Honour gives.

WEINBERG JA:

I agree, for the reasons given by Priest JA, that this appeal should be dismissed.

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

Isac Ayoul Daing, the respondent, beat Maryanne Sikai to death on 18 March 2014. It was a savage and merciless killing.

On 5 February 2015, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to Ms Sikai’s murder. A plea in mitigation took place on 14 August 2015. On 24 August 2015, the judge sentenced the respondent to be imprisoned for 18 years and six months, and fixed a non-parole period of 14 years and six months.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the sentence imposed, claiming both manifest inadequacy and specific error. He relies on two grounds:

1.The sentence of 18 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment on a charge of murder, in the circumstances pertaining here, was manifestly inadequate.
Particulars:
(i) The sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalty applicable in sentencing the respondent for a grave example of the most serious offence known to law;
(ii) The sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to the sustained brutality of the attack on a defenceless woman;
(iii)The sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to fact that the accused had broken into Ms Sikai’s home;

(iv)The sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to murder occurring in the context of an intimate partner or ‘domestic’ relationship where one party had terminated the relationship;
(v) The sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to the relevant lead up and previous violent behaviour of the respondent towards Ms Sikai;
(vi)The sentencing judge erred in the extent to which the diagnosis of PTSD reduced the respondent’s moral culpability;
(vii) The sentencing judge erred in…

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 DPP v Daing

Details

AGLC: DPP v Daing [2016] VSCA 58
Case: [2016] VSCA 58
Decision Date: 31 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Daing, the High Court was tasked with examining the sentence imposed on the appellant for the crime of murder. The appellant had brutally attacked his former partner, resulting in her death. The weapon used during the attack further exacerbated the severity of the crime. A notable aspect of the case was that the appellant had suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from a traumatic upbringing in Sudan. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in finding limited remorse on the part of the appellant and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the gravity of the crime and the nature of the attack, which was both violent and premeditated. It assessed the appellant's background, including his PTSD, to understand the context of his actions. The court examined the sentencing judge's findings on the appellant's remorse, scrutinising the evidence presented. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the limited remorse displayed by the appellant, as evidenced by the appellant's lack of genuine expressions of regret or accountability for his actions. The court also found that the sentence of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years and 6 months, was not manifestly inadequate, considering the brutal nature of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Given the severity of the crime and the findings of the sentencing judge, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the original sentence, emphasising the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of such heinous crimes. The court's decision highlighted the need for appropriate sentencing that balances the circumstances of the offender with the need to protect society and provide justice to the victim.

Orders