R v Dacey - [2014] NSWSC 1452

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: R v Dacey

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1452

Hearing Date(s): 24 October 2014

Decision Date: 24 October 2014

Before: R A Hulme J

Decision:
Imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - grievous bodily harm with intent - judge alone trial - intention to inflict serious harm formed spontaneously - use of weapon elevates seriousness - objective seriousness slightly below mid-range - substantial criminal record - offender on parole when offence committed - personal deterrence and retribution emphasised - signs of remorse - three year delay in resolution of proceeding - long state of uncertainty - offer to plead guilty rejected by Crown - low prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: R v Dacey, Ian; R v Dacey, Lee [2014] NSWSC 1201

Category: Sentence

Parties: Regina
Ian Dacey

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr T Hoyle SC (Offender)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Armstrongs Solicitors

File Number(s): 2011/333188

JUDGMENT

R A HULME J: On 29 August 2014, the offender, Ian Dacey, was acquitted of a charge of murder but found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. His brother, Lee Dacey, was acquitted of both charges. At the election of the offender and his brother the trial was by judge alone: R v Dacey, Ian; R v Dacey, Lee [2014] NSWSC 1201.
Causing grievous bodily harm with intent is an offence contrary to s 33 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years. There is also prescribed under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

Facts

The offender and his brother were in the company of the victim, Mr Peter Dent, at his home at Hamilton South on the afternoon of 9 August 2011. They consumed drugs together. They travelled with him in a taxi to the home of the offender's mother at Newcastle East in the early evening. The offender and his brother were described by the taxi driver as appearing to be under the influence of something.
Mr Dent returned to his home at some stage during the evening. The offender and his brother returned there at about 2.30am. Mr Dent had acquired the drugs they had consumed the previous afternoon and they wanted him to get some more. However, Mr Dent told them that his supplier would not be available at such an early hour of the morning and they would have to wait.
Mr Dent eventually left to get the drugs at about 5.30am and returned at about 6.00am. An argument developed; apparently Mr Dent refused to hand over the drugs until he was given the money. Lee Dacey claimed that he had already given him the money. (The amount involved was $350.) The offender was asleep but was woken by the argument and intervened. Mr Dent…

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 Dacey

Details

AGLC: R v Dacey [2014] NSWSC 1452
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1452
Decision Date: 24 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dacey involved the appellant, Dacey, who was charged with grievous bodily harm with intent, following an altercation with the deceased, Mr. Smith. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Dacey was tried by a judge alone. The central dispute was the appropriate sentence for Dacey given the severity of the crime and the various mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case.

The legal issues before the court involved the determination of the appropriate sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent, where the act was committed with a weapon and resulted in serious injury. The court needed to consider the nature of the crime, the level of intention, the use of a weapon, and the impact of the crime on the victim. Additionally, the court had to weigh the substantial criminal history of Dacey, his conduct while on parole, and his expressed remorse against the need for personal deterrence and retribution.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, noting that the use of a weapon and the significant injury inflicted elevated the gravity of the crime. The court found the objective seriousness of the offence to be slightly below the mid-range. Despite the substantial criminal history of Dacey and the fact that he committed the offence while on parole, the court acknowledged his signs of remorse and the delay in resolving the proceedings. However, the court rejected the offer of a guilty plea due to the Crown's stance. Ultimately, the court found that Dacey had low prospects of rehabilitation, leading to a sentence that emphasised deterrence and retribution.

The court sentenced Dacey to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the need for punishment and deterrence. The sentence also acknowledged the personal circumstances of Dacey, including his remorse and the delay in resolving the matter, but ultimately prioritised the need to protect the community and deter future criminal behaviour.

Orders