R v Dacey, Ian; R v Dacey, Lee - [2014] NSWSC 1201

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dacey, Ian; R v Dacey, Lee [2014] NSWSC 1201
Hearing dates: 11 - 26 August 2014
Decision date: 29 August 2014
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Ian Dacey:
Not Guilty to murder;
Guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent
Lee Dacey:
Not Guilty to murder;
Not guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - grievous bodily harm with intent - previous trial but no verdicts reached - trial by judge alone - causation - reasonable possibility that stab wounds inflicted by Ian Dacey did not substantially or significantly contribute to death of deceased - common ground that grievous bodily harm was caused - satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that grievous bodily harm was intentionally caused - satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ian Dacey did not believe it was necessary in order to defend brother - joint criminal enterprise to assault but no foresight of grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Ian Dacey
Lee Dacey
Representation: Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr T Hoyle SC (Ian Dacey)
Ms A Moen (Lee Dacey)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Armstrongs Solicitors Pty Ltd
Mandy Hull & Associates

File Number(s): 2011/333188; 2011/356716

Judgment

R A HULME J: On 11 August 2014 the two accused, Ian Dacey and Lee Dacey, were arraigned before me and pleaded not guilty to both counts in the indictment: murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so.

They had previously been tried before Button J and a jury but for some reason no verdicts were reached.

Each of the accused elected that their retrial be conducted by judge-alone. The Crown agreed to this. I was satisfied that all of the statutory pre-conditions had been met which left me with no discretion but to make a trial by judge order: ss 132-132A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

At both trials the accused Ian Dacey was represented by Mr Hoyle SC. Lee Dacey was represented by Ms Yehia SC at the first trial and by Ms Moen at this trial.

Overview of the Crown case

The incident with which the case is concerned occurred at the unit block where the deceased, Mr Peter Dent, lived. It was on Glebe Road at Hamilton South and appears to have been one of a number of blocks in a complex. The accused attended the deceased's home on the afternoon of 9 August 2011. They then travelled with him in a taxi to the home of the accuseds' mother at Newcastle East in the early evening. It seems that Mr Dent was on friendly terms with their mother.

It was apparent to the taxi driver that the accused were under the influence of something (drugs). Mr Dent somehow made his way back to his home. The accused returned by taxi at about 2.30am. An argument (verbal and physical) developed at about 6.00am. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dacey, Ian; R v Dacey, Lee and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 1201
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Ian and Lee Dacey, were tried for the murder of a deceased person and for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The trial was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case was previously heard before a jury, but no verdicts were reached. The trial proceeded before a judge alone in the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide included whether there was a reasonable possibility that the stab wounds inflicted by Ian Dacey did not substantially contribute to the death of the deceased. Another issue was whether there was common ground that grievous bodily harm was caused. The court also needed to determine if the prosecution had satisfied the court beyond reasonable doubt that the grievous bodily harm was intentionally caused and that Ian Dacey did not believe it was necessary to defend his brother. Additionally, the court had to decide if there was evidence of a joint criminal enterprise to assault but no foresight of causing grievous bodily harm.

The court found that the stab wounds inflicted by Ian Dacey did not substantially contribute to the death of the deceased, as there was a reasonable possibility that they did not. However, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that grievous bodily harm was caused and that it was intentionally inflicted. The court also concluded that Ian Dacey did not believe it was necessary to defend his brother. The court found that there was a joint criminal enterprise to assault, but no foresight of causing grievous bodily harm.

The court ordered that Ian Dacey be found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent but not guilty of murder. Lee Dacey was found not guilty of any offence.

Orders