R v Dansie

Case [2019] SASC 215

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v DANSIE

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone

[2019] SASC 215

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Lovell

20 December 2019

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - INTENTION TO KILL OR CAUSE SERIOUS NON-FATAL INJURY

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY

On Easter Sunday 2017, the accused took his wife, who was wheelchair dependent, to Veale Gardens in the South Parklands of Adelaide. Around sunset, his wife drowned in one of the rock pools in Veale Gardens. The prosecution alleges that the accused pushed his wife into the pond and deliberately drowned her. The defence case is that the drowning was accidental. The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

Whether the prosecution could exclude accidental drowning as a reasonable possibility – whether the accused intended to kill his wife – circumstantial evidence – evidence of motive

Held:

1. The accused is guilty of murder.

Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P, referred to.
Peacock v The King (1912) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; R v Micallef (2002) 136 A Crim R 127; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 638; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; R v Ball [1911] AC 47; De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85; R v Georgiev (2001) 119 A Crim R 363; R v Quist [2017] SASCFC 37; Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; Farquharson v The Queen [2012] VSCA 296, considered.

R v DANSIE
[2019] SASC 215

LOVELL J

Overview

  1. On Easter Sunday 2017, Mr Dansie took his wife to Veale Gardens (the Gardens) in the South Parklands of Adelaide. Mrs Dansie, a permanent resident of the Valley View Nursing Home (the Nursing Home) due to longstanding and severe mobility restrictions, was unable to walk unaided and therefore wheelchair dependent. Mrs Dansie retained some strength in her upper limbs.

  2. Shortly after 6.00 pm, around sunset, Mrs Dansie drowned in Rock Pool 7 (the pond)[1]. The depth of water in the pond varied but was generally around one metre to 1.1 metres. The prosecution alleges that Mr Dansie, for financial and relationship motives, murdered his wife by pushing her into the pond and deliberately drowning her. Mr Dansie, in his interviews with the police, stated that her death was accidental and that he attempted to save Mrs Dansie from drowning in the pond.

    [1]    When interviewing Mr Dansie the police referred to Rock Pool 7 as “the pond”.

  3. The issue at trial was whether the prosecution could prove that Mrs Dansie was murdered thus excluding accidental drowning as a…

Continue reading R v Dansie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dansie [2019] SASC 215
Case
[2019] SASC 215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dansie involved a trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the defendant, Mr Dansie, was charged with the murder of his wife, Mrs Dansie. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dansie had intentionally killed his wife, or whether the drowning of Mrs Dansie could be reasonably attributed to an accident. The case was heard by a judge without a jury.

The court needed to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the elements of murder. These elements included whether Mr Dansie had committed a voluntary, conscious, and deliberate act that caused the death of Mrs Dansie, whether he had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm at the time of the act, and whether the act was unlawful. Additionally, the court had to consider the prosecution's evidence of motive and other acts by Mr Dansie that could be indicative of murder rather than accident.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established a dual motive for Mr Dansie to commit the murder: a deterioration in his relationship with his wife and an interest in pursuing a sexual relationship with another woman, Sophia. The court considered this motive in conjunction with the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution, including the topography of the pond, Mr Dansie's explanations and demeanour during police interviews, and his lack of urgency and distress in the call made to emergency services. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved all four elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt, finding that Mr Dansie deliberately pushed his wife's wheelchair into the pond, resulting in her drowning.

The court found Mr Dansie guilty of murder, stating that this was the only rational inference available on the evidence presented. The detailed reasoning and analysis by the court provided a clear path from the evidence to the conclusion of guilt, ensuring that the decision was well-founded and justifiable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Dansie elected not to give evidence in this Court; he remained silent. He was not bound to give evidence. He has the right to decline to give evidence. Because that is his legal right, I must not draw any inference adverse to him or the case he puts forward from the exercise of that right. There may be many reasons why he did not give evidence and I must not speculate on those reasons. I bear in mind that it is, at all times, for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.General background There was little dispute as to the primary facts; much of the evidence was uncontested. What inferences could be drawn from the evidence was in issue. Mr and Mrs Dansie were married in 1973. Before his marriage Mr Dansie worked as a fisherman in the south-east of South Australia, an apparently lucrative occupation. At aged 20, he purchased land at Waterfall Gully and built a house. Mr Dansie still lives there. After marrying Mrs Dansie he worked for many years at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). He also worked as a commercial pilot. Mrs Dansie was a qualified micro-biologist. In 1981, their son Grant was born. In 1995, Mrs Dansie suffered a life-threatening stroke. A lengthy stay in hospital was followed by many months of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, Mrs Dansie did not make a full recovery and was left with permanent cognitive deficits and weakness in her right leg. Her permanent disabilities meant she could not return to work. Mrs Dansie’s contributory superannuation policy entitled her to access a defined benefit pension for life. Mr Dansie became the full-time carer for Mrs Dansie. They lived in the Waterfall Gully residence built by Mr Dansie. Statements by Mr Dansie to the police suggest that he continued to work for at least part of the time he was caring for Mrs Dansie. Due to her cognitive problems, the Public Advocate was, in 2004, made a limited and joint guardian with Mr Dansie. They were to make decisions about her residential and care requirements. The joint guardianship ceased in 2009; Mr Dansie again became her sole carer. In 2015, Mrs Dansie contracted a serious illness (E. coli infection), requiring admission to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and then the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. On discharge in September 2015, Mrs Dansie was admitted to the Nursing Home in respite care. In November 2015, the Public Advocate and Mr Dansie were again appointed joint guardians. Mr Dansie wanted her to return to the Waterfall Gully residence. The Public Advocate considered that the premises were unsuitable. The dispute was to be determined in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). In September 2016, Mr Dansie conceded that Mrs Dansie should stay at the Nursing Home. Mrs Dansie’s status at the Nursing Home then changed from being in respite care to becoming a permanent resident. This change had financial ramifications for Mr Dansie. For reasons not fully explained, Mr Dansie and his son Grant became estranged not long after Mrs Dansie returned home after completing her rehabilitation in 1996. In 2000, Grant left home while in his final year at school. After finishing school, Grant studied at Griffith University in Brisbane and then in Copenhagen. Since 2001, he has lived overseas and currently lives in Norway. Grant always attempted to maintain a loving and caring relationship with his mother despite that, after her stroke in 1995, she was a “different person”.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issue at trial was whether the prosecution could prove that Mrs Dansie was murdered thus excluding accidental drowning as a reasonable possibility.General overview of the evidence Mr Pearce QC, counsel for the prosecution, relies, broadly speaking, on three categories of evidence. First, evidence pointing to the improbability of Mrs Dansie drowning by accident. The evidence includes:·the topography of the area around the pond and the pond itself;·Mr Dansie’s explanations, in various interviews, of how Mrs Dansie came to be in the pond and his inability to rescue her;·Mr Dansie’s lack of urgency and distress in the call made to 000; and·Mr Dansie’s lack of distress generally as well as his demeanour during the interviews with the police. Secondly, the prosecution relies on evidence of motive. This evidence has two strands that are connected but distinct. The evidence includes:·Mr Dansie’s dealings with the Public Advocate (recent and historical);·his concern about money and the cost of care for Mrs Dansie as well as the financial benefits to him on the death of Mrs Dansie; and·the development of his relationship with a lady named Sophia leading up to and after the death of Mrs Dansie. Thirdly, evidence of acts of Mr Dansie that are consistent with, and probative of, the prosecution case of murder rather than accident. The evidence includes:·Mr Dansie leaving his watch and wallet in the car before taking Mrs Dansie into the Gardens; and·Mr Dansie conducting internet searches prior to Mrs Dansie’s death seeking information about funeral costs. Mr Mead SC, counsel for Mr Dansie, in his statement after the prosecution opening, identified the defence case as there being insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dansie murdered Mrs Dansie. He pointed to the lengthy explanations given by Mr Dansie to the police as establishing that the drowning was accidental. Overall, he submits that the totality of the evidence did not exclude, at least as a reasonable possibility, that Mrs Dansie drowned by accident.Legal elements of murder Murder is committed if a person, by a voluntary and deliberate act or acts, kills another person unlawfully and with the intention either to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. Grievous bodily harm simply means really serious bodily harm. There are four essential elements to the crime of murder. The four elements are as follows:1that the accused committed an act or acts that were voluntary, conscious and deliberate;2that the act or acts proved to have been committed by the accused caused the death of the deceased;3that at the time the accused committed the act or acts which caused the death of the deceased, the accused had a specific intention either to kill the deceased or to cause the deceased grievous, that is, really serious, bodily harm; and4that the act or acts which caused the death of the deceased were unlawful. Mr Dansie comes into this court with a presumption of innocence in his favour. He is regarded by the law as innocent unless I find the charge against him proved. The onus or burden of proving the charge is on the prosecution. Mr Dansie does not have to prove anything. The prosecution must prove the charge, and every element, or ingredient, of the charge, to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In my view, the prosecution has established a dual motive for Mr Dansie to kill his wife: both a deterioration in his feelings for his wife and an interest in pursuing a sexual relationship with Sophia. While the existence of such a motive does not of itself establish that Mr Dansie is guilty of murder, it falls to be considered with the balance of the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution.Conclusion I have had regard to all of the evidence. I have considered all of the submissions of Mr Mead SC. Taking all of the evidence into account, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt:1that Mr Dansie committed an act or acts that were voluntary, conscious and deliberate, namely pushing Mrs Dansie, who was seated in her wheelchair, into the pond;2that the act or acts committed by Mr Dansie caused the death of Mrs Dansie;3that at the time Mr Dansie committed the act which caused the death of Mrs Dansie, Mr Dansie had a specific intention to kill Mrs Dansie; and4that the act which caused the death of Mrs Dansie was unlawful. I find that the prosecution has proved all four elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. To put it another way, I find that Mr Dansie, deliberately and with intent to kill Mrs Dansie, pushed her wheelchair, in which she was sitting, into the pond in the Gardens. As a result of that action, Mrs Dansie drowned in the pond. I find that not only is this finding of guilt a rational inference, I find that it is only rational inference available on the evidence. I find Mr Dansie guilty of murder.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.