Legal Research
Cases
R v Dally

R v Dally

Case [2000] NSWCCA 162 11 May 2000

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [2000] 115 A Crim R 582

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Dally [2000] NSWCCA 162

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60659 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 3 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Craig Brookes Dally

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 2; Smart AJ at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70043/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sperling J

COUNSEL :
M A Ramage QC
(Appellant)
D C Frearson
(Crown)

SOLICITORS:
T A Murphy
(Appellant)
S E O'Connor
(Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - jury agremeent as to manslaughter does not require basis or variety of manslaughter to be agreed - sentence not excessive .

CASES CITED:
Regina v Brown (1984) 79 CAR 115; Regina v Giannetto (1997) 1 Cr App R 1; Regina v Phillips (1988) 86 Cr App R 18; Thatcher v Regina (1987) 39 DLR (4th) 275; Regina v Gaughan (1990) Crim LR 880; Regina v Clarke & Johnstone (1986) VR 643; KBT v Regina (1997) 191 CLR 417; Regina v Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447; Regina v Leivers & Ballinger (1998) 101 A Crim R 185; Regina v Bessant (Unreported NSWSC 20 May 1998); Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; Regina v Cramp (1999) NSWCCA 324.

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60659/1998

SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ
SMART AJ

Thursday 11 May 2000

REGINA v CRAIG BROOKES DALLY
JUDGMENT 1 SULLY J: I agree with Smart AJ. 2 CARRUTHERS AJ: I agree with Smart AJ. 3 SMART AJ: Craig Brookes Dally appeals against his conviction of manslaughter and seeks leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence comprising a minimum term of 5 years 3 months and 13 days penal servitude and an additional term of 2 years. The judge thought that a sentence comprising a minimum term of 6 years and an additional term of 2 years was appropriate. The sentence imposed reflected that the applicant had spent a total period of 8 months 2 weeks and 4 days in custody prior to his trial. The jury had found the appellant not guilty of murder. 4 The case was left to the jury on the basis that it was open to them to find the appellant guilty of murder or manslaughter or not guilty of either. Self defence was raised. The jury were told that it could bring in a verdict of manslaughter if the Crown did not negative provocation or if the Crown failed to prove the specific intent necessary for the crime of murder, but was satisfied that a deliberate act of the appellant had caused the death of the deceased and that act was unlawful and dangerous. 5 As at 6 January 1997, the date on which the appellant killed Raymond Marden, the two men shared a flat at 1/590 Elizabeth Street, Redfern. The deceased…

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 Dally

Details

AGLC: R v Dally [2000] NSWCCA 162
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 162
Decision Date: 11 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dally involved the respondent, Dally, who was charged with manslaughter following the death of an individual. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the primary concern was whether the jury's agreement on the charge of manslaughter was sufficient, without requiring a consensus on the specific basis or type of manslaughter. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed on Dally was excessive.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the jury's agreement on a manslaughter charge necessitated a consensus on the specific basis for the manslaughter, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court had to determine if the jury's agreement on the charge of manslaughter was valid despite differing views on the type of manslaughter, and if the sentence was within the bounds of reason and fairness.

The court of appeal held that the jury's agreement on a charge of manslaughter did not require a consensus on the basis or variety of manslaughter. The court found that the jury's unanimous agreement on the charge of manslaughter was sufficient, and that differing views on the specific type of manslaughter did not invalidate the verdict. Furthermore, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on Dally was not excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No additional final orders were made. The court confirmed the jury's agreement on the manslaughter charge, rejected the notion that a consensus on the type of manslaughter was necessary, and upheld the sentence imposed on Dally as reasonable and proportionate.

Orders