R v Dansie

[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 reasonable possibility.

   General overview of the evidence

4. Mr Pearce QC, counsel for the prosecution, relies, broadly speaking, on three categories of evidence.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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         

9. 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.

10. 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; and

    4that the act or acts which caused the death of the deceased were unlawful.

11. 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.

12. Mr Dansie told police that he had hold of the wheelchair, and was pushing it, at the time Mrs Dansie entered the water. The prosecution alleges that Mr Dansie, at the relevant time, had the intention to kill Mrs Dansie. No other basis for murder was suggested. The prosecution did not suggest, for example, that Mrs Dansie may have accidentally fallen into the pond and then Mr Dansie formed an intention to kill her. The prosecution case, from the outset, was that Mr Dansie deliberately and intentionally pushed Mrs Dansie into the pond and did so with the intention of killing her. If the prosecution cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Dansie had that specific intention at the time Mrs Dansie entered the water he must be acquitted. The defence is that her entry into the water was accidental. That is, Mr Dansie did not have the intention, at the time Mr Dansie entered the water, to kill Mrs Dansie. The defence submit that the prosecution cannot exclude, at least as a reasonable possibility, that Mrs Dansie accidentally drowned.

    Circumstantial evidence

13. There were no independent eyewitnesses to the events that occurred at the pond. The prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

14. When the case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence, the jury or a judge sitting without a jury, cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are ‘such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused’[2]. To enable me to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, it is necessary not only that his guilt should be a rational inference, but that it should be ‘the only rational inference’[3] that the circumstances would enable me to draw.

    [2]    Peacock v The King (1912) 13 CLR 619 at 634 per Griffith CJ.

    [3]    Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 252 per Menzies J.

15. A case is not bound to fail merely because it relies upon circumstantial evidence to the exclusion of direct evidence. The strength of circumstantial evidence lies in its ability to show that ‘according to the common course of human affairs, the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed’[4]. While this statement of principle is uncontroversial, it is really ‘no more than an amplification of the rule that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt’[5].

    [4]    Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 at 375 per Dixon J.

    [5]    Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 at 502 per Mason CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ.

16. However, to be reasonable an inference must rest upon something more than mere conjecture.[6] It is necessary to weigh and consider the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, the finder of fact ought not stretch credulity or engage in tortuous reasoning in order to explain away each and every individual circumstance as being consistent with innocence.[7]

    [6]    Peacock v The King (1912) 13 CLR 619 at 661 per O’Connor J.

    [7]    R v Micallef (2002) 136 A Crim R 127 at 135 [42] per Dunford J.

17. A circumstantial case is not to be considered piecemeal.[8] Often in a circumstantial case, there will be evidence of matters which, looked at in isolation from other evidence, would yield an inference compatible with the innocence of the accused. However, it is of critical importance to remember that in considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence.[9]

    [8]    R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 638 at 638 [48] per Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ.

    [9]    Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 590-591 per McHugh J.

18. As Gibbs CJ and Mason J stated in R v Chamberlain (No 2):[10]

    At the end of the trial the jury must consider all the evidence, and in doing so they may find that one piece of evidence resolves their doubts as to another. For example, the jury, considering the evidence of one witness by itself, may doubt whether it is truthful, but other evidence may provide corroboration, and when the jury considers the evidence as a whole they may decide that the witness should be believed. Again, the quality of evidence of identification may be poor, but other evidence may support its correctness; in such a case the jury should not be told to look at the evidence of each witness "separately in, so to speak, a hermetically sealed compartment"; they should consider the accumulation of the evidence.

    Similarly, in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, the jury should not reject one circumstance because, considered alone, no inference of guilt can be drawn from it. It is well established that the jury must consider "the weight which is to be given to the united force of all the circumstances put together".

    (Citations omitted)

    [10] Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 535.

19. Further, as Dixon CJ said in Plomp v The Queen:[11]

    All the circumstances of the case must be weighed in judging whether there is evidence upon which a jury may reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the commission of the crime charged. There may be many cases where it is extremely dangerous to rely heavily on the existence of a motive, where an unexplained death or disappearance of a person is not otherwise proved to be attributable to the accused; but all such considerations must be dealt with on the facts of the particular case. I cannot think, however, that in a case where the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence any part of the circumstances can be put on one side as relating to motive only and therefore not to be weighed as part of the proofs of what was done.

    [11] Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 242 per Dixon CJ.

20. While a circumstantial case is not to be considered piecemeal it is important to bear in mind inferences, explanations and submissions put forward by an accused in relation to individual items of circumstantial evidence. To put that another way, resolution of the case depends upon my assessment of all the evidence and that includes, of course, not just inferences in favour of the prosecution but inferences, explanations and submissions put forward on behalf of the accused.

21. Thus, the question is whether on all of the evidence in the case the prosecution has proved the guilt of Mr Dansie beyond a reasonable doubt; that not only should his guilt be a rational inference, but that it should be the only rational inference that the circumstances enable me to draw.

    Motive

22. A proven motive is a matter which may support or assist in drawing an inference of intention; it may also be relevant to whether an accused committed the offence charged. As Lord Atkinson stated in R v Ball:[12]

    Evidence of motive necessarily goes to prove the fact of the homicide by the accused… inasmuch as it is more probable that men are killed by those who have some motive for killing them than by those who have not.

    [12] R v Ball [1911] AC 47 at 68.

23. However, motive is not an element of the offence and therefore it is not necessary as a matter of law for the prosecution to prove that an accused had a particular motive. Even if motive can be proved as part of a circumstantial case, it will not, of itself, be sufficient to establish guilt of the offence.[13] Proof of motive cannot establish a prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, though it can assist in a significant way.[14] Motive is a piece of circumstantial evidence; that is, it is not direct evidence but evidence which depends upon the drawing of inferences.  Evidence of motive may be strong or weak. Motive is simply one item of evidence in a case that may tend to show that a person who committed an act acted with a particular intention.[15]

    [13] De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 at 99 [53] per Kirby J.

    [14] R v Georgiev (2001) 119 A Crim R 363 at 392 [78] per Ormiston JA.

    [15] De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 at 99 [57] per Kirby J; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 242 per Dixon CJ.

    Election not to give evidence

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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”.

30. Grant considered that Mr Dansie deliberately obstructed him from having access to, and contact with, his mother. He also became concerned that Mr Dansie was not providing Mrs Dansie with adequate or appropriate care. Grant was not able to ascertain how his mother’s finances were organised. Ms Ginny Giorgio, a neighbour and friend of Mrs Dansie, had similar concerns. It appears that Mr Dansie, from 1995, controlled Mrs Dansie’s finances. Mr Dansie always denied suggestions that he did not appropriately care for his wife or that he did not look after her finances properly.

31. The relevance of the evidence, whether the allegations be right or wrong, is that the concerns of Grant and Ms Giorgio led to a number of contested applications before the Guardianship Board (later the SACAT) commencing in December 2005. The applications and decisions are summarised in Exhibit P39. I discuss the relevance of the applications later in these reasons. By way of agreed background, I note the following:

    ·On 9 December 2005, the Guardianship Board ordered that the Public Advocate be appointed “limited guardian” for Mrs Dansie in relation to whom Mrs Dansie had contact. Grant’s application for an administration order was dismissed. Mr Dansie continued to look after the finances without supervision.

    ·On 24 October 2007, Mr Dansie was formally appointed administrator; this required him to file a yearly financial report of Mrs Dansie’s finances.

    ·On 14 May 2009, the Office of the Public Advocate ceased acting as a limited guardian for Mrs Dansie.

    ·Mrs Dansie inherited $46,686.00 following the death of an uncle. After deducting approximately $7,000 (being a deficit in her accounts), Mr Dansie invested the remaining amount in the home.

    ·Between 2010 and 2014, the financial examiner at the Public Trustee examined the financial reports filed by Mr Dansie and found them to be satisfactory.

    ·On 20 November 2015, SACAT appointed Mr Dansie and the Public Advocate (represented by David Cripps) as joint guardians for Mrs Dansie. The SACAT also made a finding that Mrs Dansie had a “mental incapacity”.

    ·Between January 2016 through to June 2016, the Public Advocate and Mr Dansie were in dispute as to whether Mrs Dansie should return to live at the Waterfall Gully residence. The Public Advocate had concerns about the suitability of the premises.

    ·On 20 June 2016, the Public Advocate applied to review the Guardianship Order as the joint guardians were “unable to act jointly” about the suitability of the premises.

    ·On 5 September 2016, the Public Advocate withdrew the application for sole guardianship as Mr Dansie had agreed that Mrs Dansie should stay at the Nursing Home rather than reside at the Waterfall Gully residence.

    ·On 1 March 2017, Suzanne Rozman replaced David Cripps as the Public Advocate.

    ·On 6 March 2017, Ms Rozman raised with Mr Dansie the possibility of a review of the administration order and an investigation into Mrs Dansie’s finances.

    ·On 27 March 2017, Grant Dansie and Ms Giorgio filed applications to review the appointment of Mr Dansie as administrator and joint guardian. The application was listed for hearing in July 2017.

1. In general terms, at the time of Mrs Dansie’s death, Mr Dansie remained in sole control of Mrs Dansie’s finances and was a joint guardian with the Public Advocate; applications to review both matters were before the SACAT. I deal in more detail, later in these reasons, with the Public Advocate’s contact with Mr Dansie leading up to the death of Mrs Dansie.

2. I find the above matters of general background established.

3. In relation to the care of Mrs Dansie prior to 2015, I make the following observations and findings. From 1995 to 2015, Mr Dansie looked after Mrs Dansie. I have had regard to the evidence of Dr Fuller and Ms Wilk, friends of Mr and Mrs Dansie. They made observations of Mrs Dansie and her relationship with Mr Dansie prior to 2015. Their evidence supported the proposition that Mrs Dansie’s care was reasonable. Their observations differed to those made by Grant Dansie and Ms Giorgio.

4. While others may have had a different view as to the standard of Mrs Dansie’s care, the Guardianship Board (and the SACAT), prior to Mrs Dansie becoming a full-time resident at the Nursing Home in 2015, did not see fit to intervene other than to appoint the Public Advocate to be a joint guardian. The evidence establishes that Mr Dansie performed the role of carer adequately. The care provided by Mr Dansie may not have met the standard others considered reasonable but I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that he did provide an adequate standard of care.

   Mrs Dansie’s physical and mental condition

5. Generally, there was little dispute about Mrs Dansie’s physical and mental condition. However, it is necessary for me to make findings about this aspect, particularly her condition as at April 2017.

6. Evidence was given by a number of witnesses about this topic, including the two called on behalf of Mr Dansie, namely Dr Fuller and Ms Wilk.

7. Mr Day gave the most detailed account of Mrs Dansie’s restrictions. Mr Day has a Certificate III in Aged Care and had worked as a carer at the Nursing Home for 14 years. His daily duties included showering and toileting residents as well as assisting with feeding and daily activities. He regularly provided care for Mrs Dansie. In particular, he was involved in her care from the time she was a full-time resident until her death. Mr Day had been involved in Mrs Dansie’s care when she had been, for short periods, in respite care.

8. Mr Day made the following relevant observations. From the time Mrs Dansie came to the Nursing Home on a permanent basis (I infer Mr Day meant September 2015), Mrs Dansie was not able to get out of her wheelchair unassisted. Her transfer from, for example, her bed to her wheelchair required the involvement of two carers or the use of a “Stand Easy” machine. Either method required Mrs Dansie to bear some weight through her legs and, to some extent at least, use her arms for support. Towards the beginning of 2017, her mobility and strength decreased and a “full sling” was required to transfer Mrs Dansie from bed to a wheelchair. The use of the full sling meant that Mrs Dansie could be transferred to her wheelchair without weight bearing.

9. In the months leading up to her death the full sling was used approximately 75% of the time to get Mrs Dansie out of bed. However, she was occasionally able to stand but only with assistance from carers or the Stand Easy machine. In the week before her death Mr Day observed a transfer where a full sling was not used. Mr Day stated that Mrs Dansie was able to use her arms. For example, she could assist Mr Day in her transfer from a shower chair to her wheelchair. Mr Day stated that her capacity to use her arms reduced in the months leading to her death but that she was still able to assist him. He observed that Mrs Dansie was able to “hold onto the bar” with her hands with a “view to supporting her weight”.

10. Mr Day observed Mrs Dansie, from time to time, release the brakes on the wheelchair. She was not able to put the brakes on.

11. Mr Day stated that Mrs Dansie had impaired dexterity, required assistance with her hygiene, needed prompting to undertake tasks and lacked insight into her need for care. She lacked insight into her own abilities. While Mrs Dansie could not manage sustained or repeated movement of her limbs due to fatigue and generalised weakness, he did not consider that she had poor balance when sitting. Mr Day accepted that Mrs Dansie had difficult leaning forwards to reach her lower limbs and could not rotate her body to reach behind her.

12. Mr Day stated that otherwise Mrs Dansie’s health was good and she appeared happy.

13. Ms Jiang, a registered nurse working at the Nursing Home, gave evidence consistent with that given by Mr Day. In addition, Ms Jiang said that Mrs Dansie’s short-term memory was poor; she could not remember, for example, what she had for lunch that day. Ms Trevaskis, an executive director of the Nursing Home, noted Mrs Dansie’s short-term memory loss. However, she considered Mrs Dansie was intellectually sharp and could play chess and participate in quizzes, consistent with her pre-stroke intellectual capacity. Ms Castro, a clinical nurse at the Nursing Home, gave evidence consistent with the evidence of Mr Day.

14. Dr Foo provided medical services to residents of the Nursing Home. Mrs Dansie was one of his patients. Dr Foo was aware of Mrs Dansie’s history of a stroke in 1995 and, consistent with that history, he observed she had a left-sided weakness. Dr Foo noted that she was able to use her right arm to perform some activities. Dr Foo considered that Mrs Dansie had short-term memory problems and was concerned that her executive function was compromised. Initial testing of her executive function was inconclusive. In 2017, Mrs Dansie was taking reflux medication, medication to lower cholesterol, Warfarin (a blood thinning agent) and an iron supplement. Other than her mobility and cognitive issues, Dr Foo considered that Mrs Dansie, in 2017, was in good health.

15. Ms Miles, in 2015, worked for Take Five, an organisation that offered respite care. The respite care was funded by the Government as part of a disability package. Mrs Dansie was a client. She would visit Mrs Dansie fortnightly sometimes at the Waterfall Gully residence. She would play games with her, particularly word games such as Scrabble. At this time, Mrs Dansie could walk, in a shuffling way, unassisted. On one occasion, Ms Miles took Mrs Dansie to a hydrotherapy session. After Mrs Dansie was admitted to hospital in 2015, Ms Miles continued to visit her. This continued while Mrs Dansie was in respite care in the Nursing Home. Once Mrs Dansie was confirmed as a permanent resident, the funding for the Take Five respite care ceased. Ms Miles did not see her after that time. Ms Miles’ evidence, which was tendered from the previous trial, was not disputed. It is, for the relevant period, consistent with other evidence.

16. The evidence of Ms Wilk, Dr Fuller, Grant Dansie and Ms Giorgio, on the question of Mrs Dansie’s restrictions, was generally consistent with the other witnesses.

17. There was no suggestion that any of the witnesses were other than truthful and honest in their evidence. Any differences in observations are accounted for by the witnesses’ opportunity to observe Mrs Dansie, particularly after her admission to the Nursing Home on a permanent basis.

18. Mr Day was an honest and careful witness. He had the best opportunity to assess Mrs Dansie’s physical restrictions. I accept his evidence to the extent that it differs from other witnesses. I also rely on Dr Foo’s evidence both as to her physical and cognitive restrictions.

19. I have also had regard to the CCTV footage of Mr Dansie, without assistance, transferring Mrs Dansie from her wheelchair to the front passenger seat of his car on the afternoon of 16 April 2017. The CCTV footage establishes the following matters:

    ·To transfer Mrs Dansie, Mr Dansie put his right arm around, and to some extent, under Mrs Dansie’s left shoulder.

    ·At that time, Mr Dansie’s right arm was obscured in the video but it appeared to be, to some extent, around her right shoulder as well as her left.

    ·Mrs Dansie was then lifted by Mr Dansie out of the wheelchair. Mrs Dansie, as she began to move out the wheelchair, placed her right hand on the roof of the car immediately above the front passenger seat.

    ·Mrs Dansie then appeared to be upright and supported by Mr Dansie’s left arm and her right hand was still on the roof of the car.

    ·Mrs Dansie appeared to shuffle to her right, assisted by Mr Dansie’s right arm. His left arm was then visible and was not supporting Mrs Dansie at all.

    ·As Mrs Dansie moved towards the passenger seat her right hand moved down the roof to the left windscreen strut and Mr Dansie appeared to still be supporting her with his right arm and hand.

    ·Mrs Dansie bent a little to ensure her head cleared the roof of the car and became seated in the car.

20. In my view, the CCTV footage supports the evidence of Mr Day as to the physical capabilities of Mrs Dansie. The footage establishes that Mrs Dansie, with assistance, was capable of weight bearing on her legs for a short period of time. It also establishes that she was capable of using her right arm and hand to assist with her balance. The video also establishes that Mr Dansie was capable of lifting Mrs Dansie, with some assistance from her, from the wheelchair into the standing position.

21. I make the following findings:

    ·Mrs Dansie, as a result of her stroke in 1995, was left with permanent residual weakness on her left side.

    ·Mrs Dansie also suffered permanent short-term memory loss.

    ·Over the years, Mrs Dansie’s mobility became more restricted, including restrictions in all limbs but more pronounced on the left side.

    ·After her hospital admission in 2015, Mrs Dansie’s mobility worsened and she became wheelchair bound.

    ·Over the years, there was slight deterioration in Mrs Dansie’s already compromised cognitive abilities.

    ·As at April 2017, Mrs Dansie was unable to stand unassisted; with assistance she could weight bear for a short period of time.

    ·Mrs Dansie retained some strength to hold herself upright by holding onto a fixture, for example, a car door.

    ·Mrs Dansie’s strength in her arms had reduced in the months before her death but she retained some capacity to assist her carers with transfers and support, to an extent, her weight.

    ·Mrs Dansie had impaired dexterity and required assistance with hygiene tasks; she lacked insight into her need for care.

    ·Mrs Dansie could not manage sustained or repeated movement of her limbs due to fatigue and weakness.

    ·Mrs Dansie’s flexibility was severely restricted but she maintained reasonable balance when sitting in her wheelchair.

    ·Mr Dansie was physically capable of lifting Mrs Dansie from the seated position to the standing position with some assistance from Mrs Dansie.

    Evidence of Professor Byard - Forensic Pathologist

22. On 17 April 2017, Professor Byard conducted a post-mortem examination on Mrs Dansie. Professor Byard is a highly qualified and experienced forensic pathologist. His qualifications were not challenged.

23. Professor Byard noted that Mrs Dansie was 174 cm tall and 117 kg in weight. Her body mass index was 38.6 which meant she was on the borderline of being morbidly obese. The distance from the sole of her foot to her hips was 90 cm.

24. External examination revealed no signs of manual strangulation. Some minor abrasions around the lips turned out to be bites from yabbies inflicted when Mrs Dansie was in the pond. Red bloodstained fluid coming out of her mouth and nose was consistent with her having drowned. A small bruise on the back of her right wrist and a small abrasion on her left forehead were recent; that is, the injuries could have occurred an hour or so before death or at the time of death. Professor Byard could not be more specific.

25. Internal examination revealed other areas of bruising but no injuries suggesting manual strangulation. There was a bruise located in the muscles at the back of the neck measuring 20 mm by 50 mm. The fact that it was a deep bruise gave no information as to the amount of force or the mechanism of the force that caused the bruise. Professor Byard was unable to put a specific age on the bruise.

26. Bruising was also noted:

    ·on the back of the left upper arm measuring 25 mm by 100 mm;

    ·over the back of the left shoulder measuring 20 mm by 50 mm;

    ·to the lower part of the left side of the back; and

    ·on the back of the right elbow measuring about 15 mm.

27. These bruises appeared recent. Professor Byard did not observe bruising that was consistent with forceful grab marks.

28. Examination of Mrs Dansie’s lungs showed fluid, congestion and oedema. These are characteristic of drowning but not diagnostic. Fluid in the lungs can occur from inhaling water but it can also occur from heart failure.

29. Mrs Dansie’s heart on external examination appeared normal. There was no scarring such as that caused by heart disease. However, an important finding was that one of her coronary arteries showed significant narrowing with atherosclerosis. Such a condition could be completely asymptomatic or it could be associated with a reduction in blood supply to the heart causing a sudden heart attack leading to death.

30. Most people, but not all, with significant atherosclerosis would exhibit symptoms or signs such as chest pain or shortness of breath. Exertion can bring on symptoms. A heart attack in such circumstances could occur after a gradual build-up of symptoms or alternatively come on very quickly. The usual symptoms, even if it is a heart attack of rapid onset, are shortness of breath and a clutching of the chest. The fact that Mrs Dansie was confined to a wheelchair suggested that she did not exert herself. A heart attack in those circumstances is unlikely, although possible. However, once Mrs Dansie was in the water, the stress could initiate a cardiac event. In those circumstances, it is likely that she would have become unconscious within a few minutes. Professor Byard accepted the possibility that Mrs Dansie’s pre-existing heart condition meant that she could have suffered a cardiac arrest either before or after she entered the pond.

31. Samples of blood taken for toxicology were tested and the results were negative for alcohol and drugs.

32. Professor Byard attributed Mrs Dansie’s death to drowning given the autopsy findings, both positive and negative, and the overall circumstances.

33. Professor Byard stated that body fat floats whereas bone and muscle tend not to float. The more dense a body is the less likely it is to be buoyant. To put that another way, an obese person will float more easily than a thin person. Mrs Dansie’s weight meant she was bordering on being morbidly obese. Given her body mass index, she was more likely to float, or to be more buoyant, than a thin person.

34. Professor Byard accepted that there is a well-recognised syndrome known as Aquatic Victim Instead of Rescuer (AVIR) syndrome. That is, a well-meaning rescuer is at risk of drowning as well as the person they are attempting to save. A rescue attempt can be a very emotionally charged and dangerous situation. Sometimes a drowning victim can hold a rescuer under the water. Where a rescuer is not out of his depth in the water, the risk of the rescuer drowning is obviously less.

35. Here, Mr Dansie could stand in the water. There was little prospect of him drowning although I accept, as a general proposition, that every rescue has some attendant risk.

36. Mrs Dansie’s hip to hip measurement was 55 cm and the seat of the wheelchair was 45 cm. The wheelchair weighed 19 kg. Professor Byard accepted that when Mrs Dansie entered the water, she may have been trapped in the wheelchair. Her pre-existing conditions meant she would be less able to free herself if trapped. He accepted that, if trapped, the weight of the wheelchair would drag her under the water rather than her floating. Professor Byard also accepted it was likely that, as long as she remained conscious, there was a possibility of her struggling.

37. I accept the evidence of Professor Byard. I accept his opinion that Mrs Dansie drowned in the pond. I reject, even as a reasonable possibility, the suggestion that Mrs Dansie may have had a heart attack prior to entering the pond. Mr Dansie is the only person who observed Mrs Dansie’s last few moments before she entered the pond. In his statements to the police, Mr Dansie did not suggest that Mrs Dansie was behaving other than in a normal manner. There was no suggestion that she had a shortness of breath or was clutching her chest. Indeed, as discussed later, Mr Dansie said that she released the brake on the wheelchair just prior to entering the pond.

38. Although highly unlikely, it is possible that Mrs Dansie may have had a heart attack as a result of her exertions in the pond. During his interviews with the police, Mr Dansie did suggest that Mrs Dansie was tangled in her wheelchair.  However, Mr Dansie’s explanations suggest that, even if she was in fact tangled in the wheelchair, it must have been only for a brief period. On the prosecution case it does not matter if Mrs Dansie suffered a heart attack due to her exertions in the pond. As discussed earlier, the prosecution case is that Mr Dansie deliberately pushed Mrs Dansie into the pond with the intention of killing her. If a heart attack was the cause of death after entering the water, or a contributing factor in Mrs Dansie drowning, Mr Dansie’s action, if proved, of deliberately pushing her into the pond with the intention of killing her was causative of her death.

    The layout and topography of the Gardens and the pond

39. The Gardens are situated in the parkland area between Peacock Road and Sir Lewis Cohen Drive. The northern aspect of the Gardens abuts South Terrace. Features of the Gardens include a large rose garden area, a number of rock pools and a creek that meanders through the area. There are also a number of sealed walking paths through the area. The rock pools are all situated west of Peacock Road. It is common ground that Mrs Dansie died in Rock Pool 7, the pond, in the Gardens.

40. The prosecution tendered:

    ·an aerial photograph of the Gardens;[16]

    ·a plan of the gardens;[17] and

    ·a bundle of eight photographs taken by use of a drone showing various areas in the Gardens and in particular the pond.[18]

    [16] Exhibit P3.

    [17] Exhibit P4.

    [18] Exhibit P5.

41. I attended two views at the Gardens and, in particular, the pond. The views assisted me in understanding the evidence. The plans establish that there were other rock pools in the Gardens.

42. The rock pools are numbered heading east from Sir Lewis Cohen Drive towards Peacock Road. Rock Pool 1 is located at the western end of the Gardens near Sir Lewis Cohen Drive. Other features in the Gardens are also numbered. Rock Pool 2 is actually two rock pools and is located to the east of Rock Pool 1. Other features are numbered 3, 4 and 5. Rock Pool 6 is further east of feature 5.

43. Rock Pool 8 is located just west of the Adelaide Pavilion restaurant near Peacock Road. The pond is situated to the west of Rock Pool 8. Sealed paths run in an approximate east-west direction either side of the pond. Neither path comes particularly close to the pond. From the northern edge of the pond to the northern path is approximately 10 metres.[19] The area around the pond is not flat. To approach the pond from the south requires walking up a mound. To reach the northern aspect of the pond requires a person walk down the other side of the mound.  The southern edge of the pond nestles into that mound. Access to the pond is, practically speaking, only possible from the northern edge.

    [19] Exhibit P34.

44. To access the pond from the north requires leaving the sealed path and traversing the grass area. There is a gentle incline from the path for about four to five metres followed by a gentle decline for a similar distance leading to the northern edge of the pond.

1. The pond at its widest point, running in an east-west direction, is approximately six metres; north-south approximately five metres.[20] It is, roughly speaking, circular.[21] The deepest point, near the middle of the pond, is approximately 1.1 to 1.15 metres. The depth varies throughout the pond. Near its northern edge it is consistently approximately one metre deep.[22] The southern edge of the pond is generally a little shallower but exiting the pond in that vicinity was not possible.

   [20] Exhibit D29.

   [21] Exhibit P5 photograph 7; Exhibit P6 at 3.

   [22] Exhibit P30.

2. Brevet Sergeant Jacobs, a police officer attached to the Water Operations Unit, attended at the pond on 17 April 2017. Along with two colleagues he entered the pond. Diving equipment was not required because of the “shallow depth of the pond”. He described the pool construction as “stack stone”. That is, the sides consisted of large stones stacked in layers. The stones were of varying shapes and sizes. The base of the pool was made of solid concrete, although there was mud and silt (“more silty than mud”) covering it.  The mud and silt was not thick. Brevet Sergeant Jacobs identified two points where the stacking of the stones created a ledge that provided a step closer to the water surface. This would make it easier for a person to get out of the pond. The areas were marked 1 and 2 in Exhibit P28. The area marked 1 is more relevant than the area marked 2. The rock that could be used to get out of the pool was 350 mm below the water surface. Other rocks, identified by Brevet Sergeant Jacobs as being on the bottom of the pond, were too far from the edge to be of any assistance; he stated that standing on them would make it harder to get of the pond.

3. The pond was subsequently drained and photographs taken of the bottom of the pond.[23] The “other” rocks referred to by Brevet Sergeant Jacobs can be seen in Exhibit P23.[24]

   [23] Exhibit P23.

   [24] In particular photograph 1.

4. Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury, who interviewed Mr Dansie on the night of the incident, gave evidence about his investigations into the depths of all the rock pools in the Gardens and also the depth of the creek.

5. His observations were as follows:

   ·The creek was less than knee-deep; he thought about 30 cm deep.

   ·Rock Pool 1 is exposed from all sides. It could be seen from Sir Lewis Cohen Drive. It varied from knee-deep to waist-deep.[25]

   ·Rock Pool 2 is two pools. The northern one is 10 cm deep. The southern one is deeper but completely surrounded by rocks. It was not possible to move a wheelchair close to the water without lifting it over the rocks.

   ·Between Rock Pool 2 and the conservatory (as marked on Exhibit P4) is a very shallow rock pool (not numbered); it is approximately 10 to 20 cm in depth.

   ·Rock Pool 6 is built into the hillside. It is surrounded by boulders that prevent wheelchair access to the water’s edge.

   ·Rock Pool 7, the pond, has a safety fence on the high side (southern side). There are no barriers on the northern edge of the pond. It can be accessed as seen in the photographs in Exhibit P6.

   ·Rock Pool 9 is very shallow, possibly 10 cm deep. The water’s edge could be accessed by wheelchair.

   ·There is a rock pool between the Adelaide Pavilion and the tram stop as shown in Exhibit P4. It is of similar depth to Rock Pool 1. Low vegetation circles it and it is adjacent to a road leading to the parking areas for the Pavilion.

   [25] Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury is five feet 11 inches tall.

6. In addition, it was agreed that the water features in the Gardens drain into the creek which runs approximately east to west through the Gardens. At various points along the creek are “stepping stone” crossings. The water from the creek is supposed to trickle through the gaps in the stepping stones. On occasions, the bypass pipes next to the crossings become blocked, causing the water to flow over the top of the stepping stones up to a depth of about 10 mm.

7. When the pond was emptied a number of yabbies, large ones, were located in the pond. This is relevant to Professor Byard’s opinion. Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury noted that the bottom of the pond was concrete. Photographs of the emptied pond were tendered.[26]

   [26] Exhibit P23.

8. Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury interviewed Mr Dansie in the early hours of 17 April 2017. Mr Dansie was taken back to the pond and invited to demonstrate to Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury what had happened and where. To assist in understanding that evidence, Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury identified specific rocks found on the northern edge of the pond. At trial, they were identified as being Rocks A, B and C. Using the photographs in Exhibit P6, Rock A is the obviously dry rock seen on the right-hand side of the top photograph on page 11. Rock B is immediately to the east (left) in that photograph. The right-angled ruler seen in the photograph is adjacent to Rock B. Rock C is to the east (left) of Rock B. The rock seen on the left-hand side of the photograph was not given an identifying label.

9. The topography evidence was common ground. I accept Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury’s evidence, which was unchallenged, on these topics. Brevet Sergeant Jacobs gave evidence at the last trial and the transcript was tendered by consent. I accept that evidence.

10. A video showing Mrs Dansie’s body in the pond was tendered.[27] The video, taken by Detective Brevet Sergeant Cox, also contained footage of a police diver locating the wheelchair in the pond. Finally, the footage showed the police removing Mrs Dansie’s body from the pond.[28] I have ignored the audio on the exhibit. I make the following observations and findings about the footage:

    ·Initially the fountain was still operating and water was being projected from near the top of the rocks on the southern edge and landing towards the northern end of the pond.

    ·At approximately one minute and 26 seconds, the rocks identified as A, B and C can be clearly seen.

    ·At approximately one minute and 50 seconds, Mrs Dansie’s body is adjacent to, but partially to the east, of Rock C. The water is lapping over the edge of Rock C and the rock immediately to the east of Rock C due to the action of the fountain.

    ·The fountain, when the body was removed from the pond, was no longer operating.

    ·At one minute and 30 seconds, the water level is overlapping the edge of Rock C and to a lesser extent the rock immediately to the east of Rock C. While there were two police divers in the pond, which would raise the water level, it must be remembered that Mr Dansie, who weighed 130 kg at the time, stated he had been in the pond attempting to save Mrs Dansie.

    ·At two minutes and 18 seconds, Mrs Dansie’s body was rotated by the police divers and placed on a stretcher. The rotation was performed easily.

    ·At two minutes and 30 seconds, Mrs Dansie’s body was removed from the pond over the top of Rock C. This action required the least amount of lifting due to the water being, on the edge at least, at the same level as Rock C.

    [27] Exhibit P16 file 1.

    [28] Exhibit P16 file 2.

11. To ascertain his height, Mr Dansie was photographed standing alongside a scale ruler. [29] Mr Dansie appears to be approximately 182 to 185 cm tall. If Mr Dansie was standing straight, the water level of 1.1 metres would reach just above his stomach but comfortably below his shoulders. If standing with his knees flexed, the water level would be closer to his chest muscles.

    [29] Exhibit P50.

12. Sergeant Fulcher, a crash reconstructionist with the Major Crash Section, attended the Gardens on 17 April 2017 to record the topography around the pond. By use of a device called a Total Survey Station, he measured various distances in addition to vertical and horizontal angles. He prepared a number of plans.

13. Exhibit P34 is an overhead plan showing the areas where the measurements were made. Exhibit P33 shows the horizontal topography and average gradients in the area of the measurements to a scale of 1:50. Exhibits P33A, P33B and P33C show those gradients and topography at a scale of 1:1.

14. I accept his evidence.

15. Heading south from the path towards the pond the ground slopes gently up for about six metres before sloping gently down to the rocks by the pond. Rock C, as identified earlier, has its topographical features depicted in Exhibit P33B. Rock B was approximately 1600 mm long and approximately 800 mm at its widest point (in an approximate north-south direction). No measurements were taken of Rock B that enabled a profile to be drawn. However, Rock B is not flat.

16. It was agreed that the air temperature at Kent Town at 6.00 pm on 16 April 2017 was 20 degrees Celsius.[30] The minimum temperature was 13.7 degrees Celsius and the maximum was 23.9 degrees Celsius. Sunset was at 5.50 pm.  Civil twilight was from 6.14 pm to 6.16 pm.[31]

    [30] Exhibit P45.

    [31] Twilight is the time between day and night when the sun is below the horizon but its rays still light up the sky. Each of the three twilight phases is defined by the solar elevation level. Civil Twilight is the brightest of the three twilight phases. The sun is just below the horizon (up to 6 degrees below) and there is generally enough natural light to carry out most outdoor activities.

17. On 18 April 2017 at around 2.50 pm, the police measured the water temperature of the water in the pond. The water temperature measured 18.5 degrees Celsius. At the time, the air temperature at Kent Town was 28.5 degrees Celsius.

    Discussion

18. The topography of the area around the pond, and within the pond, was not disputed. The water depth in the pond was also not contested. I find those matters proved.

    The wheelchair and tyre marks

19. It is common ground that Mrs Dansie was wheelchair-bound as at 16 April 2017. It is also common ground that when she entered the pond she was in the wheelchair.

20. The wheelchair, as already discussed, was found in the pond by police divers as shown in the video Exhibit P16. It was taken straight out of the pond and examined by Detective Brevet Sergeant Cox. He examined the wheelchair and noted both brakes were in the off position. This evidence was not challenged and I accept it.

21. Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury took measurements of aspects of the wheelchair. Depending on the orientation of the swivel front wheels, the distance between the front and back wheels was 420 mm to 495 mm. The distance between the base of the back-left tyre to the base of the back-right tyre was 560 mm. The wheelchair weighed 19 kg.[32]

    [32] Exhibit P45.

22. Mr Sage, a vehicle examiner for the Major Crash section of the police, examined the wheelchair on 24 April 2017. His evidence from the previous trial was tendered.[33] A booklet of photographs of the wheelchair and an identical wheelchair were also tendered.[34] Mr Sage noted that the pneumatic rear tyres of the wheelchair were underinflated. The recommended pressure for the tyres was 60 pounds per square inch (psi). The left tyre was inflated to 18.5 psi and the right tyre to 22 psi.

    [33] Exhibit P67.

    [34] Exhibits P35 and P36.

23. The wheelchair had brakes that operated on the rear wheels; the brakes operated independently of each other. To operate a brake, a lever is pushed forward which lowers a knurled bar against the tyre. The lever and knurled bar can be seen in photographs 4 and 7 of Exhibit P36. The pressure of the knurled bar against the tyre prevents the tyre from turning. The operating lever can be locked in place.

24. Mr Sage tested the operation of the brakes independently and together. He found that even applied together they did not work. He was able to push the wheelchair with no difficulty. That was in contradistinction to the identical wheelchair that had the tyres inflated to 60 psi. With the brakes operating he was not able to move that chair. Mr Sage accepted, however, that he had not tested the brakes on the original wheelchair with any person sitting in it.

25. Mr Mead SC submits that with the weight of a person sitting in the wheelchair the brakes may have operated at least to some extent. With that caveat the evidence was not in dispute. I accept the submission of Mr Mead SC. I accept that the testing was limited in the manner described by Mr Mead SC. The brakes may have operated but only to a limited extent.

26. Brevet Sergeant White, a crime scene investigator, attended the Gardens on 16 April 2017 and took a number of photos relevant to the investigation.[35] His photographs included tyre marks he observed near the pond.[36] His evidence was not disputed and I accept it.

    [35] Exhibit P6.

    [36] Exhibit P6 at 10, 11 and 12.

27. Sergeant Veldhoen, an officer attached to the Forensic Response Section, is an expert in tool, shoe and tyre mark comparison. His evidence from the previous trial was tendered.[37] Sergeant Veldhoen used photographs taken by Brevet Sergeant White to conduct a physical comparison between the photographic images of the tyre marks and the tyres of Mrs Dansie’s wheelchair.

    [37] Exhibit P68.

28. Sergeant Veldhoen examined the tyres of Mrs Dansie’s wheelchair;[38] he concluded they had no individual features different from any tyre of the same brand. The tyre marks seen in the photographs were consistent with having been made by Mrs Dansie’s wheelchair but also consistent with any wheelchair that had the same brand of tyre.

    [38] Exhibit P37.

29. From his examination, Sergeant Veldhoen concluded that there were at least three separate actions of a tyre to create the marks seen in the photographs. One explanation could be that the same tyre made all three marks by the wheelchair being pushed forward and then brought back and pushed forward again.  However, another wheelchair with the same brand of tyres may have contributed to the marks. Other explanations as to how the marks came to be left were available. Sergeant Veldhoen was unable to say anything about the direction of travel of the wheelchair at the time it left the marks. The wheelchair may have been travelling backwards or forwards.

30. There was no dispute about any of the above matters and I accept the evidence of Sergeant Veldhoen.

    Search of Mr Dansie’s car on 16 April 2017

31. After the discovery of Mrs Dansie’s body, and an initial discussion with Mr Dansie, the police searched Mr Dansie’s vehicle that was parked on South Terrace. Among other items of interest, the police located a watch that belonged to Mr Dansie. During his police interviews he was asked why his watch was in the car. He said, on three occasions, that he had been working earlier on another car and had taken his watch off. The prosecution submits that his explanation was untrue and a deliberate lie. The prosecution sought to use the alleged lie to attack, generally, the credibility of his other statements to the police.

32. To establish a lie the prosecution must establish that Mr Dansie made a statement, that the statement was false and that it was a deliberate untruth.[39]

    [39] R v Quist [2017] SASCFC 37 at [169] per Blue J.

33. Whether Mr Dansie told a lie and, if so, how it could be used, are discrete issues which do not depend upon, but may affect, other issues in the case. It is a matter I can determine in isolation.

34. The police, subsequent to the search and the interviews, obtained CCTV footage of places visited by Mr Dansie during the course of 16 April 2017.[40]

    [40] Exhibit P46 is screenshots of various footage. There were also agreed facts (Exhibit P45) in relation to the CCTV footage.

35. CCTV footage shows Mr Dansie, at 11.49 am on 16 April 2017, purchasing two fanbelts at Supercheap Auto at Hectorville. He is wearing a watch.

36. CCTV footage obtained from the Nursing Home shows Mr Dansie arriving at the Nursing Home and then wheeling Mrs Dansie to the car and placing her in the car (referred to earlier in these reasons). He is wearing a watch.

37. CCTV footage, from 3.39 pm on 16 April 2017, shows Mr Dansie entering the On The Run (OTR) at Woodville. He is wearing a watch.

38. When questioned by Brevet Sergeant Munn at the police station about his watch being in the car, Mr Dansie said that the watch had been “there for a couple days”, he was “doing some work on the old, old ute”, it is “an Armani watch”, and he was “careful about taking it off before I work”.

39. Later in the interview with Brevet Sergeant Munn there was discussion about the return of Mr Dansie’s mobile phone and wallet. During that conversation Mr Dansie said that his watch was in the “centre bit” of his car. He repeated what he had said to the police earlier, namely that it was an Armani watch with a scratch and it was in there “because I was doing some work on the ute”.

40. When questioned by Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury back at the Gardens about the watch Mr Dansie said he did not have a watch on. He had been doing some work on the old ute. A fan belt needed replacing. He said that “today I got replacement belts and, um, I was going to fix those before I picked Helen up so I took my watch off and put it in the car”.

41. While there are slight variations in the reasons given by Mr Dansie, the common theme is that he had taken his watch off to do work on the car. This had occurred either earlier on 16 April 2017, before he picked up Mrs Dansie from the Nursing Home, or a few days before.

42. The CCTV footage establishes that his explanations are untrue. The CCTV footage establishes he was wearing the watch as late as 3.39 pm on 16 April 2017, not long before his arrival at the Gardens.

43. In my view, he was being asked to recall a recent event and gave a similar explanation on three occasions. The repetition of Mr Dansie’s explanation establishes a considered response. In those circumstances, I find it was a deliberate untruth, not just an error in recollection.

44. Mr Mead SC submits that Mr Dansie may have simply taken his watch off because it was uncomfortable and then forgotten about it.  He pointed to an incident that occurred during the taking of the forensic procedure where Mr Dansie took his watch off in the room and then accidentally left it there. I do not accept that submission for two reasons. First, Mr Dansie did not say to the police that he took the watch off because it was uncomfortable; he gave a specific reason and repeated the reason. At no time did he say that he simply took it off and forgot about it.  Secondly, the police gave his watch back to him during that evening. In his interview back at the Gardens, Mr Dansie is seen wearing his watch. Clearly it was not uncomfortable for him.

45. I find Mr Dansie lied to the police about this issue.

46. Mr Pearce QC submits that I should find Mr Dansie lied about the topic of his watch and further submits that it was a lie going to credit only; that is, the prosecution did not submit it was a lie told out of a consciousness of guilt. I accept that submission and will treat the evidence accordingly.

47. Thus, the lie goes solely to the credit of Mr Dansie. I do not reason that because I have found that he told a lie, it is evidence of guilt.[41]

    [41] Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28 at [23] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ.

48. I find it is a matter I can take into account when considering the answers he gave during the course of the interviews with the police.

49. Also located in the car was Mr Dansie’s wallet and his dental plate. A change of clothes for him, not Mrs Dansie, was located in a bag on the backseat. The prosecution relied on the finding of these items in addition to the finding of the watch. Mr Mead SC submits that the wallet was safer in the car than being carried in the Gardens. Mr Dansie, he submits, was dressed in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt. A change of clothes was explicable given that it was autumn.

50. There was no dispute about the location of the items. The significance of the evidence and submissions can only be determined in light of the evidence as a whole.

    Events occurring at the pond

51. There were no eyewitnesses to the events that occurred at the pond. The only direct evidence of what may have occurred at the pond came from Mr Dansie in his interviews with the ambulance service and police. Mr Dansie initially called the 000 emergency number. The recording of the call and a transcript of the conversation were tendered. He also spoke to the ambulance officers who responded to the emergency call. Mr Dansie spoke to various police officers throughout that evening and into the early hours of the morning. In those interviews, he gave a description of what he had done or not done.  The interviews were recorded on video; there were many hours of recordings.

1. The interviews, including a discussion at the scene, the Grenfell Street Police Base, the Waterfall Gully residence, and then again at the scene, continued until 3.00 am on 17 April 2017. The prosecution submit that I can, and should, take into account, when considering the evidence as a whole, the demeanour of Mr Dansie throughout the lengthy interview process. His demeanour, it is submitted, shows such a “lack of distress” that it is relevant and admissible on the prosecution case as a piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of Mr Dansie. This lack of distress encompasses his behaviour during the interviews and the topics of conversation he embarks upon.

2. The prosecution submits that I can have regard to the demeanour of Mr Dansie when speaking to the 000 operator, ambulance officers and when interviewed by the police, particularly bearing in mind what Mr Dansie did and did not do that night and what he said and did not say. The prosecution submits that his behaviour and answers during the interview were so unusual that his conduct was such that it was consistent with a deliberate act of murder rather than accident.

3. The prosecution alleges that Mr Dansie’s behaviour, statements and actions demonstrate the implausibility of his version of events, namely that the death of Mrs Dansie was an accident. To put that another way, the conduct of Mr Dansie can be used to prove that he voluntarily and consciously, with intent to murder, pushed Mrs Dansie into the pond.

4. The conduct of Mr Dansie both before and after the alleged offence is admissible for the purposes identified here by the prosecution.[42] What weight, if any, should be given to such evidence was a contested matter.

   [42] Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 242-243 per Dixon CJ; Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 at 344 per Menzies J; Farquharson v The Queen [2012] VSCA 296.

5. The audio of the 000 call was played in court. I have listened to it since I reserved my decision. I have watched many hours of video, both in and out of court, of Mr Dansie being interviewed by the police. The interviews commenced shortly after the police arrived at the scene around 6.30 pm on 16 April 2017. By that stage, Mr Dansie had called 000 and had also spoken to the ambulance officers who attended.

6. Having watched and heard the interviews I make the following observations.

7. I have taken into account Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury’s observations regarding the state of the Waterfall Gully residence when they attended on 16 April 2017. He thought it showed evidence of hoarding. Other comments during the case by other police officers support that observation as do parts of the video of the search of the Waterfall Gully house. Detective Brevet Sergeant Newbury’s observation is, of course, not a medically based opinion but rather a description of what he and others observed.

8. Further Dr Fuller, a friend of Mr and Mrs Dansie, whose evidence I accept, commented on the relationship between Mr and Mrs Dansie before she suffered the stroke. He stated:

   QCould I ask you about your observations of the relationship between Helen Dansie and Peter Dansie prior to her stroke in 1995.

   AI was of the view that there was a very close relationship between Helen and Peter prior to 1995. I think Helen was of significant assistance to Peter in a number of areas, in my assessment. Helen was an intelligent, very nice, good person who tried extremely hard to assist Peter, and I think she did it in a number of areas; business, their personal relationships with other people. Peter's communication skills were not as strong perhaps as Helen's and Helen was often very valuable, I think, to Peter in terms of setting the necessary frameworks for Peter to operate in and to set achievable objectives and to follow through those objectives, and did that in a very positive and constructive way and the two worked together very well.

   QCan you give us some indication of the context in which you saw that kind of interaction. You mentioned going to coffee, visiting their home; is that where you made these observations.

   AYes, and with other social situations when other people might have been involved at their home, say, people having coffee there from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Helen would often assist gently Peter in his conversation because Peter would sometimes get a little sidetracked and his logic and clarity mightn't have been as good as it could have been for some people and Helen would be very valuable to Peter in those situations.

   QDid you make any observations of the relationship in so far as it related to Peter Dansie's health or generally.

   AI think Helen was very important for Peter in looking after him in a number of areas, in looking after his presentation, his clothes, in looking after his diet, in looking after the way he conducted himself with respect to exercise and so on. So I think Helen was vital really in almost all aspects of Peter's life.

   (Emphasis added)

9. Whilst this evidence is relevant to establishing the nature of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Dansie prior to 1995, it does touch on aspects of Mr Dansie’s personality. Dr Fuller’s observations are also relevant in explaining why Mr Dansie raised various topics during his interviews with the police.

10. I find that during his interviews with the police Mr Dansie appeared largely unemotional; his attitude appeared clinical. He showed very little or no emotion that one might expect from a person who had just witnessed the death of his wife of many years. I accept that the vagaries of human nature are such that there will be a substantial variation in the manner in which people would react to such a traumatic event. In assessing Mr Dansie’s personality I’ve had regard to the other evidence in the case.

11. As Mr Dansie himself said to the police, he likes to talk and that statement receives strong support from his behaviour that evening. Without meaning to be unkind, Mr Dansie does like to talk and often tells stories involving himself. Mr Dansie regaled the police, on more than one occasion, with stories that painted himself as successful in whatever endeavour he undertook, and the people with whom he came in contact as forever grateful to him. The stories he told were either irrelevant to the discussion or tangential at best. I am not able to gauge the accuracy of many of his stories but that is not the point. The prosecution points to the fact that, accurate or not, his discussions were not of the type that a person, who had just witnessed the accidental drowning of his wife, would undertake. Much of his conversation sought to impress rather than enlighten.

12. I do accept that part of the discussion with the police in the early interviews occurred in the context of “passing time” while officers attended to their tasks. Some of his stories were in response to questions asked by the police. On occasions, but not always, the conversations continued because of questions by the police.

13. The police who initially spoke to Mr Dansie were, understandably, sympathetic in their dealings with Mr Dansie. However, their curiosity, and no doubt some suspicion about the events, was kindled reasonably early in the investigation. However, Mr Dansie continued to talk and talk a lot. His conversation was discursive and on occasions repetitive. Somewhat paradoxically his demeanour and responses fuelled the suspicion that, with some of his answers, he sought to allay.

14. A number of references were made by Mr Dansie to his battles with the Public Advocate in the SACAT over issues of the cost of Mrs Dansie’s treatment and where she was to reside. It is clear from other evidence in the case that Mrs Dansie’s son, her friend and next-door neighbour Mrs Giorgio, and Mrs Dansie’s mother were unhappy with aspects of her treatment. Answers Mr Dansie gave about his son, his former next-door neighbour and his mother in law were startling. The clarity and the candour of his dislike, indeed hatred of them, was impressive. It is clear that those opposing Mr Dansie’s treatment of Mrs Dansie held similar views about him.

15. This mutual distrust and dislike was simply part of the background of the matter. I draw no inference adverse to Mr Dansie for holding such views. I have not been told of the reasons for the family relationship breakdown nor would it have been particularly relevant. I mention these matters because they are clear from the interviews. Indeed, it was common ground. I do not find that his views indicate bad character on his behalf. I direct myself that I must not reason that simply because he held such views about members of his family and Mrs Dansie’s family that he would be the sort of person that might commit murder. Clearly, I will not do so. However, that is not to say the evidence of the poor relationship with his son, Ms Giorgio and Mrs Dansie’s family is irrelevant. It is important background to the Public Advocate’s evidence and is probative on the question of motive.

16. The prosecution submits that Mr Dansie’s demeanour, the topics of conversation discussed during the interview and some of his answers are all relevant to their case. The prosecution submits that his behaviour and answers during the interview are so unusual that his conduct is consistent with, if not supportive of, a deliberate act of murder rather than accident, or are at least consistent with him having a motive to kill his wife.

17. Mr Mead SC submits that Mr Dansie is simply a person who has an unusual personality. He is naturally discursive and his personality, which can be assessed over the many hours of videos, explains his lack of obvious distress and emotion.

18. I find that Mr Dansie does have an unusual personality. His conversation can be discursive. However, I do not accept Mr Mead SC’s submission that Mr Dansie’s personality explains, or totally explains, his lack of distress and emotion. Being discursive may explain his tangential wanderings during the topic being discussed. Mr Dansie, however, demonstrated the ability to be quite focussed at times. In my view, the selection of topics to be discussed, and often the content of those discussions, reflect directly upon the nature and depth of the relationship between Mr Dansie and his wife. In general terms, while respectful of his wife, Mr Dansie shows little concern or distress about the fact of her death.

19. To put that another way, his conversations reflect a lack of care and empathy for his wife and a preoccupation or obsession with money. The particular way in which these matters manifested themselves may be a product of his unusual personality but nevertheless the fact of these feelings and thoughts are still relevant to the prosecution’s circumstantial case as to Mr Dansie’s acts, motives and intentions.

20. I take into account all of these matters when assessing the evidence as a whole.

21. Against that background I turn to the statements and interviews of Mr Dansie.

    The 000 call

22. Mr Dansie contacted the South Australian Ambulance Service at approximately 6.26 pm on 16 April 2017. The prosecution tendered a disc containing the audio of the call[43] and also a transcript of the audio.[44] The call lasts approximately six minutes and 40 seconds. The content of the call was not disputed.

    [43] Exhibit P1.

    [44] Exhibit P2.

23. I listened to the audio in court. I have listened to it since the evidence finished. There are a number of unusual features about this call. The content and the tone of the call speak for themselves.

24. Mr Dansie was asked by the operator to “tell me exactly what happened”. Mr Dansie embarked on a description of their movements before Mrs Dansie entered the water. It is approximately one minute and 10 seconds into the phone call that the operator becomes aware of the fact that Mrs Dansie is actually still in the pond. The operator, believing Mr Dansie is in the water made a number of suggestions to Mr Dansie such as “try and lift her head”, “try and lift her”, “try and push her up against the edge just to try and get her head out of the water”. Mr Dansie responded to those requests by saying that he had tried those actions but she was “too heavy”. The operator also pointed out to him that he could just roll her to the edge as she “will be quite buoyant”. There is a pause before Mr Dansie tells him that the ambulance officers have arrived.

25. Mr Dansie gave the operator some information about what occurred. This was the first opportunity for him to do so. Mr Dansie stated:

    ·“we were just turning around to go home and it was getting dark”;

    ·“I couldn’t move her, I said take the, take the brake off and she did and all of a sudden she, she ah, ah, all of a sudden she, ah, wasn’t there anymore”; and

    ·“the first thing I did was chucked the phone”.

26. Thus, it can be seen that Mr Dansie’s explanation that he couldn’t move the wheelchair but after the brake was taken off it “suddenly wasn’t there” was given within approximately 20 minutes of the event.

    Prosecution submissions

27. The prosecution submits that the entire call is remarkable for the lack of urgency in Mr Dansie’s voice and in what he actually said to the operator. Mr Dansie expressed no distress at all in the call and did not immediately alert the operator to the fact that his wife was still in the pond.  It is clear from the call that Mr Dansie had no interest in getting back into the pond or in attempting to keep Mrs Dansie’s head (or mouth at least) out of the water while waiting for the ambulance officers to attend. Even allowing for the vagaries of human nature it is surprising, to say the least, that Mr Dansie conveyed no sense of urgency throughout the call. The reason that Mr Dansie acted without urgency was to ensure that Mrs Dansie could not be resuscitated.

    Defence submissions

28. Mr Mead SC submits that Mr Dansie, from other evidence in the case, has an unusual personality; he is discursive and “communicates often not directly to the point”; given his personality there is nothing sinister in his conversation. The lack of urgency and reluctance to do anything further to assist Mrs Dansie simply reflected that he knew, by the time he was speaking to the operator, it was already too late; Mrs Dansie was dead.  His reluctance to get back into the pond related to his size and health. It was very difficult for a person of Mr Dansie’s size to get in and out of the pond.

    Discussion

29. When considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, and as I develop later, there is force in the prosecution submissions.

    Arrival of the ambulance officers

30. Mr Giles is a paramedic with the South Australian Ambulance Service. Mr Giles gave evidence at the previous trial which was tendered.[45] He and his partner were tasked to attend the Gardens arriving there at about 6.29 pm. Having parked the ambulance and retrieved the resuscitation equipment from the back of the ambulance they proceeded on foot. Initially they were unsure where to go once at the Gardens but they could hear someone yelling out. Mr Giles observed a male standing on the north-west side of the pond. As they approached, the male “turned and pointed at the pond” and said, “in there”.

    [45] Exhibit P52.

31. When asked whether he noticed anything about the demeanour of the male Mr Giles stated that the male:[46]

    …seemed calm, almost a little bit exhausted. He appeared wet; his legs were wet and his top half up to about his belly button seemed wet but, in terms of any urgency in his voice or his behaviour, I didn't note any, no.

    [46] Exhibit P52 at 126.

32. Mr Giles observed someone in the pond. He said the position of the body was the same as seen in the photographs in Exhibit P6 (adjacent to Rock C). Mr Giles spoke to the male (Mr Dansie) to clarify some details. Mr Dansie told him that it was his wife who was in the pond and that she had been in the water for “about 25 minutes”. Mr Dansie told him that he’d been in the pond trying to get her out but wasn’t able to. Mr Giles asked how she ended up in the pond and Mr Dansie replied that:[47]

    …he tried to turn the wheelchair around, he wasn't able to. He asked the patient to take the brakes off. As she'd done that, the wheelchair had rolled into the pond and he'd been unsuccessful in trying to get her out. He'd been trying but unable to get her out.

    [47] Exhibit P52 at 127.

33. Mr Dansie also said that “she was wheelchair-bound and that she’d been strapped into the wheelchair.”

34. Mr Giles was challenged in cross-examination about whether Mr Dansie had said that his wife was “strapped into the wheelchair”. He maintained that that was the expression used by Mr Dansie. For reasons discussed later, I do not accept his evidence about that aspect.

35. Mr Giles and his partner considered removing Mrs Dansie from the pond by using straps but before they had an opportunity to do so the police arrived. At that stage, they informed the police that as she had been in the water for 25 minutes any resuscitation was unlikely to result in a “good outcome”. The police officer told him that the area was now a crime scene and not to proceed any further with the removal of the body.

36. Mr Giles then had a further conversation with Mr Dansie. Mr Dansie told him that Mrs Dansie had suffered a stroke 22 years ago, that she was in a wheelchair and lived in a nursing home. Mr Dansie told him that he visited her three times a week.

37. Mr Giles observed that Mr Dansie seemed “quite calm, didn’t appear too upset or too panicked. Almost looked a little bit deflated, like he was exhausted”.

38. The evidence of Mr Giles, apart from the question of whether Mrs Dansie was strapped into the wheelchair, was not challenged. I accept his evidence generally, and about the conversations with Mr Dansie. I accept his explanation that Mr Dansie appeared wet “up to his belly button”. This observation is consistent with the height of Mr Dansie and the general depth of the pond. I accept his observations of how Mr Dansie appeared. However, I do so with one caveat. I do not accept Mr Giles’s evidence that Mr Dansie said Mrs Dansie was strapped into her wheelchair. Mr Giles must be in error when recalling that aspect of the conversation, perhaps reflecting an assumption on his part. Clearly Mrs Dansie was not strapped into a wheelchair, the wheelchair did not have straps and Mr Dansie, at no stage during lengthy interviews with the police, made such a suggestion.

39. I find that Mr Dansie told both the 000 operator and Mr Giles that he had asked Mrs Dansie to take the brakes off and it was after that that she rolled into the pond and he “couldn’t get her out of the water”. He told Mr Giles that she had been in the pond for about 25 minutes. Allowing for the arrival time of the ambulance, Mrs Dansie was in the pond for about 15 to 20 mins before Mr Dansie rang 000.

    The arrival of the police

40. Sergeant Clague was the first police officer on the scene. He gave evidence at the previous trial and the transcript of his evidence was tendered.[48]

    [48] Exhibit P53.

41. Sergeant Clague arrived at the Gardens at about 6.34 pm. He followed ambulance officers who were walking towards the incident. When he arrived at the pond, he saw ambulance officers and a person in civilian clothing (Mr Dansie). The ambulance officers told him that the person had been in the pond for 25 to 30 minutes and there was little chance of resuscitation. He made the decision to preserve the scene and directed the ambulance officers not to remove Mrs Dansie’s body.

42. Sergeant Clague noted that there was a fountain operating with a jet of water arching into the pond. He noted that rocks at the southern end of the pond were wet which he assumed was from the spray from the fountain. He observed that Mr Dansie’s clothes were wet. It was clear Mr Dansie had been in the water.

43. Sergeant Clague spoke to Mr Dansie. Mr Dansie said they’d “come to see the ducks or feed the ducks” and “she leaned down and took the handbrake off” and she “went in”. Mr Dansie said that he had hold of the wheelchair and that she “fell in”. He tried to get her out but she was “too heavy”. This is generally consistent with what he later told the police. He said it was an accident.

1. The interviews of course speak for themselves. There is almost no acknowledgement by Mr Dansie that he cared for Mrs Dansie. There are comments which can be interpreted as demonstrating that he respected her. She was intelligent and held down a challenging job. Mr Dansie made a number of comments about how nice a person Mrs Dansie was and how everybody who met her thought the same. But there is little in the interviews that would demonstrate that he had a caring relationship with her after 2015.

2. In his last answer to the police at the Gardens he asserted that he “loved her”. Even that answer came after a long discussion about why financially he would not now be able to claim against Mrs Dansie’s mother’s estate.

   The 000 call    

3. I find that Mr Dansie in the 000 call shows no urgency or distress. It is remarkable that it takes over a minute for Mr Dansie to tell the operator that Mrs Dansie is still in the pond. His refusal to get back in the pond to assist Mrs Dansie, that is to act on the instructions and suggestions of the operator, is also striking. I reject his explanation, that he was concerned that he may not be able to get out of the pond, as implausible given the ambulance officers were on their way. Even if they had trouble quickly locating the pond it was inevitable they would locate it.

4. I reject the submission that his “unusual personality” accounts for his behaviour during this call. Rather, I am satisfied that his behaviour during the call is demonstrative of a lack of any genuine intention or desire to help Mrs Dansie.

5. Having rejected Mr Dansie’s explanations about what occurred at the pond I am left with those facts I have already mentioned as established, such as the topography, the depth of the pond and the concrete base; I do not intend to repeat all of those matters. I am unable to make any findings as to what actually occurred once Mrs Dansie entered the water as, having rejected Mr Dansie’s explanation, I have no evidence from which to make a finding.

6. Taking all matters into account I find that it is highly unlikely that Mrs Dansie drowned accidentally in the pond.

   Other evidence

7. I annex to these reasons a chronology of the main events as the temporal relationship between events is important.

8. I have already discussed the finding of Mr Dansie’s watch in his car. I have rejected his explanation for it being in the car. I find that between leaving the OTR (where he is last seen wearing his watch at 3.39pm) and commencing his excursion into the Gardens with Mrs Dansie, for unexplained reasons, Mr Dansie took his watch off and left it in the car. In addition, he left his wallet, containing approximately $400, in the car. He also had in the car a change of clothes for himself but not Mrs Dansie.

9. In my view, the finding of all of these items, particularly the watch, is consistent with and supportive of an expectation on the part of Mr Dansie that he was going to get wet while in the Gardens.

10. The prosecution has established that Mr Dansie searched the internet enquiring about funerals. There were seven different searches on 12 March 2017 and one on 18 March 2017. The search on 18 March 2017 was of Blackwell Funerals Glenside and occurred at 1:10:29 am. Approximately a minute and a half earlier Mr Dansie had been searching “sexy 6 inch stiletto heel shoes for sale”. Mr Dansie did not tell the police about these searches. He did mention that he had gone to Blackwell Funerals and spoken to someone there in response to insurance people ringing him. He had become sick of them bothering him so he investigated the cost by attending at Blackwell Funerals. He said nothing to police to indicate that his interest in funeral insurance was prompted by the deaths of Mrs Dansie’s brother and cousin.

11. At the time of the searches I find that Mr Dansie had cover from Freedom Insurance for $15,000 on the accidental death of Mrs Dansie.

12. I find that this evidence indicates that in the lead up to Mrs Dansie’s death, Mr Dansie had been contemplating the arrangements that would need to be made in the event of her death despite the fact that she appeared to be in good health. Indeed, on at least one occasion doing so at about the same time as he was considering purchasing some “sexy” shoes. The evidence is consistent with and supportive of the prosecution case.

    Motive

13. The prosecution alleges two distinct but interconnected motives. They are a financial motive and a relationship motive (including a sexual relationship) with the lady called Sophia. I find that the prosecution has established, for the following reasons, both motives.

    Financial motive

14. The prosecution alleges that Mr Dansie’s relationship with Mrs Dansie changed after September 2015 when she became “institutionalised”. Things changed financially for Mr Dansie after that date. The cost, as discussed earlier, for Mrs Dansie to stay in the Nursing Home increased after she was made a permanent resident in September 2016. Mr Dansie also lost his ability to claim $12,000 per annum for being Mrs Dansie’s carer.

15. I have had regard to all of Ms Rozman’s evidence. From 6 March 2017, the Public Advocate, Ms Rozman, became a problem again for Mr Dansie. The Public Advocate spoke to Mr Dansie and advised him, amongst other matters, of the possibility of a review of the administration order and also a possible investigation into Mrs Dansie’s finances.

16. On 9 March 2017, the Public Advocate advised Mr Dansie that she was considering moving Mrs Dansie out of the current nursing home and placing her in a nursing home with more facilities. This would have been an additional cost. The Public Advocate also advised Mr Dansie that she had agreed to Ms Giorgio applying to the SACAT for a variation of the guardianship order to make the Public Advocate sole guardian and also seek that the Public Trustee be appointed to manage Mrs Dansie’s finances. On 28 March 2017, a joint application in those terms was filed by Grant Dansie and Ms Giorgio. It was set for hearing in July 2017.

17. Mr Dansie had spent, on his admission, approximately $100,000 on dealing with issues raised by friends and relatives of Mrs Dansie in the Guardianship Board and the SACAT. It is likely that some of the $100,000 related to the cost of building alterations. By early March 2017, he was going to have to deal with applications in the SACAT in relation to those matters raised by the Public Advocate.

18. It is clear, and I find, that Mr Dansie was very concerned about his battles with the Public Advocate. So much is obvious by the discussions he had with the police about the topic. It was an issue which obsessed him. He was clearly concerned about the cost to him of the proceedings. It was possible that he would lose control of her finances and his ability to influence what care she was to receive. While I accept that Mr Dansie may have felt he had answers to the Public Advocate’s queries, resolving the issues would take time and money. As he said to Constable Finne, his wife was taking up more and more of his time.

19. Mr Dansie was dismissive of any concerns held by Mrs Dansie’s relatives and friends about her quality of life. He considered they were either after her money or motivated by jealousy. Mr Dansie was not prepared to spend any of what he considered to be his money on improving Mrs Dansie’s quality of life. He threatened not to visit Mrs Dansie if she changed nursing homes. His responses to the Public Advocate demonstrate that whatever he had previously felt about Mrs Dansie, his feelings towards her now had changed. He wanted her to stay at the Nursing Home and he would not consider, despite his admission to being a wealthy man, spending any extra money on Mrs Dansie’s care. His attitude towards her was callous. The problems and costs associated with the attitude of the Public Advocate, as Mr Dansie would have anticipated, were resolved on Mrs Dansie’s death.

20. From when Mr Dansie conceded that Mrs Dansie should live at the Nursing Home until 17 March 2017, Mr Dansie did not take Mrs Dansie out of the Nursing Home at all. I reject his explanation that he did not do so because it was too hot. As mentioned earlier, for the same period the previous year the heat had not prevented him from taking Mrs Dansie out of the Nursing Home. I accept that leading up to March 2017 he did visit her but, contrary to his assertion to the police, he was not the only one who visited her. However, I find his decision not to take Mrs Dansie out from the Nursing Home demonstrates a change in the nature of their relationship. Mr Dansie’s sudden interest in taking Mrs Dansie out of the Nursing Home from 17 March 2017, in the context of the other matters occurring at the time, is consistent with the prosecution case. That is, it is consistent with him contemplating and considering opportunities to kill his wife rather than a change in the weather or an increased desire to assist or spend time with his wife.

21. I find that at the time of Mrs Dansie’s death, Mr Dansie was no longer able to claim $12,000 per annum for looking after Mrs Dansie. The cost of the Nursing Home had increased when she became a permanent resident. If the Public Advocate was successful in changing nursing homes, the cost would likely increase. On Mrs Dansie’s accidental death Mr Dansie could claim $15,000 from Freedom Insurance. On Mrs Dansie’s death Mr Dansie stood to receive a pension for the term of his life of two thirds of that payable to Mrs Dansie had she lived. Property held with Mrs Dansie as joint tenants would revert on her death to him alone. There were significant financial benefits to Mr Dansie on the death of Mrs Dansie.

22. In my view, the prosecution has established a financial motive for Mr Dansie to kill his wife. 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.

    Relationship evidence

23. I find that Mr Dansie had a very keen interest in pursuing a relationship, particularly a sexual relationship, with Sophia. Contrary to his initial assertion to the police, it is clear from the location of items of a sexual nature during both searches of his residence, that Mr Dansie was very interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with Sophia. The purchase of sexual items informs his intention. The content of the messages prior to the death of Mrs Dansie establish that proposition. I reject the suggestion that the messages had a “dream like character to them”. After his computers were seized by police, he encouraged his sister to contact Sophia for him. Also, such an interpretation is dispelled by the messages sent by Mr Dansie himself after Mrs Dansie’s death. Context is important in this aspect. The messages sent via QQ before the death of Mrs Dansie must be viewed in the light of the problems with the Public Advocate, the cost issues of keeping Mrs Dansie in nursing care accommodation in addition to the internet searches about the cost of funeral.

24. It is clear that from late 2015, when Mrs Dansie went to the Nursing Home, the relationship between Mr and Mrs Dansie changed. Mrs Dansie no longer lived with Mr Dansie and, over time, his attitude towards her changed. By April 2017, she was, as he perceived, a burden to him.

25. 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

26. 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; and

    4that the act which caused the death of Mrs Dansie was unlawful.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. I find Mr Dansie guilty of murder.

R v DANSIE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS (23 JULY 2014 – 11 JULY 2017)
DATE	SOURCE	CONTENTS	TOPIC
23 July 2014	Ex P39	The Guardianship Board reviews existing administration order in respect of HELEN. The Guardianship Board appoints PETER as full administrator. PETER is required to provide an annual statement of accounts.	SACAT proceedings
23 July 2015	Ex P39	HELEN is admitted to RAH with E. coli infection.	SACAT proceedings
9 September 2015	Ex P39	HELEN is discharged from RAH and admitted to QEH. From QEH, HELEN is admitted to VV in respite care.	SACAT proceedings
20 November 2015	Ex P39	SACAT makes guardianship order, appointing PETER and the PUBLIC ADVOCATE as joint guardians of HELEN. SACAT finds HELEN has a mental incapacity.	SACAT proceedings
20 November 2015	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
4 December 2015	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
13 December 2015	Ex P39	An initial home assessment report of the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE recommends that if HELEN is to return home, daily personal care is required as well as other modifications to the house.	SACAT proceedings
14 December 2015	Ex P39	The Office of the Public Advocate informs PETER that it is not comfortable releasing HELEN to return home until an occupational therapy assessment is conducted at the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE.	SACAT proceedings
15 December 2015	Ex P39	SACAT refuse GIORGIO and GRANT’s joint application for review of the 23 July 2014 administration order.	SACAT proceedings
15 December 2015	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
23 December 2015	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV	VV OUTINGS
25 December 2015	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
23 January 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
28 January 2016	Ex P41	Search for “qq” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/ QQ
30 January 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
7 January 2016	Ex P39	PETER meets with the PUBLIC ADVOCATE. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE raises concerns about the home environment for HELEN. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE advises PETER about a potential application for sole guardianship.	SACAT proceedings
15 January 2016	Ex P39	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE sends an email to PETER about the modifications required at the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE.	SACAT proceedings

14 February 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
27 February 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS.
27 March 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
7 May 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
10 May 2016	Ex P39	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE sends a letter to PETER in which he indicates that he is waiting for a response from PETER as to whether he is willing to make the modifications required before HELEN can return to the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE mentions the possibility of a review to SACAT.	SACAT proceedings
25 May 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
17 June 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
19 June 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
20 June 2016	Ex P39	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE applies to SACAT to review the guardianship order appointing him and PETER as joint guardians, as they are ‘unable to act jointly’ due to disagreement about where HELEN should reside.	SACAT proceedings
5 July 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
12 July 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
14 July 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
19 July 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
20 July 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
31 July 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
4 August 2016	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
5 August 2016	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
11 August 2016	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
15 August 2016	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER enters funeral insurance policy with FREEDOM INSURANCE. For the first 12 months of the policy, PETER and HELEN were covered for accidental death.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
18 August 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
19 August 2016	Ex P39	SACAT hearing. PETER is directed to make appointment for assessment of HELEN at the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE within one week using a private occupational therapist, with an assessment to be completed within two weeks. PETER does not comply with direction. PETER subsequently agrees that HELEN should live at VV.	SACAT proceedings
24 August 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS

September 2016	Ex P39	HELEN becomes a permanent resident at VV.	SACAT proceedings
5 September 2016	Ex P39	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE withdraws application for sole guardianship because PETER has agreed that HELEN should reside at VV.	SACAT proceedings
11 September 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
25 September 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
5 October 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
6 November 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
17 November 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
20 November 2016	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
23 November 2016	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
3 December 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
13 December 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
25 December 2016	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV for 40 minutes.	VV VISITS
3 January 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
9 January 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
16 January 2017	Ex P39	SACAT confirms guardianship order of 20 November 2015. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE and PETER are to remain joint guardians of HELEN.	SACAT proceedings
18 January 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
23 January 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
25 January 2017	Ex P69	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE (now ROZMAN) receives a call from GIORGIO, in which GIORGIO expresses concerns about HELEN’s health and living arrangements.	SACAT proceedings
26 January 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
13 February 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
24 February 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
28 February 2017	Ex P41	Searches for “Singles Fushun China”, “Fushun women” and “China Liaoning Fushun” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA

1 March 2017	Ex P69	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE visits HELEN to discuss HELEN’s wishes.	SACAT proceedings
1 March 2017	Ex P39; Ex P69	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE calls PETER and leaves a voicemail. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE sends PETER an email, in which she introduces herself as the new PUBLIC ADVOCATE and states that she would like to discuss arrangements for HELEN to attend her brother’s funeral.	SACAT proceedings
6 March 2017	Ex P39;  Ex P69	Two phone calls between the PUBLIC ADVOCATE and PETER about HELEN attending her brother’s and her cousin’s funerals. PETER indicates that HELEN’s family should pay the costs of HELEN attending the funeral. PETER indicates that he is not prepared to pay for physiotherapy for HELEN while she is institutionalised. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE raises the possibility of review of the administration order and an investigation into HELEN’s finances. PETER agrees to pay for carer and access cab for HELEN to attend her brother’s funeral.	SACAT proceedings
7 March 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
8 March 2017	Ex P69	Phone conversation between the PUBLIC ADVOCATE and PETER about HELEN attending her cousin’s funeral and about HELEN’s living arrangements. PETER agrees to pay for carer and access cab for HELEN to attend her cousin’s funeral. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE raises possibility of moving HELEN to a different nursing home.	SACAT proceedings
8 March 2017	Ex P49	PETER visits HELEN in VV.	VV VISITS
9 March 2017	Ex P69	The PUBLIC ADVOCATE meets with PETER. Discuss possibility of moving HELEN to a nursing home in Lockleys. The PUBLIC ADVOCATE says she will investigate nursing home options and ongoing therapy. PETER says he is opposed to moving HELEN and that he would not visit HELEN if she moved facilities. PETER refuses to pay for ongoing therapy.	SACAT proceedings
11 March 2017	Ex P41	Searches for “clothes/shoe markets in Shenyang”, “role playing for sex”, “sexual role playing games” and “role playing games” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA
12 March 2017	Ex P41	Searches for “visa for china Canberra” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA
	Ex P41; Ex P42	Searches for “cheap funerals”, “cheap funerals Adelaide”, “white lady funerals” on BING. Following websites accessed on Internet Explorer: “ “ “ and “	INTERNET SEARCHES/FUNERALS
14 March 2017	Ex P41	Searches for “Sale Over the Knee Boots”, “Cheap Clearance Over Knee Boots” and “Thigh High Boots Cheap Sale” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA
16 March 2017	Ex P41	Search for “market in Shenyang for shoes and clothes” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA
17 March 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS

18 March 2017	Ex P41	Search for “blackwell funerals glenside” on BING.	FUNERALS
		Searches for “sexy 6 inch stiletto heel shoes for sale”, “sexy stiletto hell shoes for sale” and “sexy one piece swimming costume for sale” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES
22 March 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
27 March 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
27 March 2017 Ex P42 says 2013	Ex P42	Following websites accessed on Internet Explorer: “ and “	INTERNET SEARCHES
27 March 2017	Ex P69	Email to PETER from the PUBLIC ADVOCATE regarding HELEN’s health.	SACAT proceedings
27/28 March 2017	Ex P39	GIORGIO and GRANT file a joint application for review of PETER as administrator and joint guardian for HELEN.	SACAT proceedings
29 March 2017	Ex P69	PETER responds to the PUBLIC ADVOCATE regarding HELEN’s health.	SACAT proceedings
31 March 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
2 April 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
5 April 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
6 April 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	Communication between PETER and SOPHIA on QQ.	QQ Conversations
10 April 2017	Ex P41	Search for “sexy 6 inch stiletto shoes for sale” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES
13 April 2017	Ex P48	PETER takes HELEN out of VV.	VV OUTINGS
15 April 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	Last communication between PETER and SOPHIA on QQ.	QQ Conversations
15 April 2017	Ex P41	Search for “Guilin Chinas” on BING.	INTERNET SEARCHES/CHINA
Before 17 April 2017  (not specified)	Ex P43	PETER communicates with ROSE on QQ.	QQ Conversations
16 April 2017 at 11:49am	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts); Ex P46	PETER visits Supercheap Auto at Hectorville, where he purchases two fanbelts. The CCTV camera captures PETER wearing a watch.
16 April 2017 at approx. 12:10pm	Ex P48; Ex P46	PETER takes HELEN out of VV. The CCTV footage captures PETER wearing a watch.	VV OUTINGS
16 April 2017 at 12:14pm – 12:25pm	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts) Ex P38	The CCTV camera at VV captures PETER assisting HELEN into the front passenger seat of a car and PETER lifting HELEN’s wheelchair into the boot of the car. PETER is wearing a watch.
16 April 2017 at 3.39pm	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts) Ex P46	PETER visits OTR at Woodville. The CCTV camera captures PETER entering the store. PETER is wearing a watch.
16 April 2017 at 5:50pm	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	Sunset.	INCIDENT AT RP7

16 April 2017 at 6:14 – 6:16pm	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	Civil twilight.	INCIDENT AT RP7
16 April 2017 at 6:26:29pm	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts); Ex P1	PETER calls 000. The duration of the call is 6 minutes and 40 seconds.	INCIDENT AT RP7
20 April 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER calls FREEDOM INSURANCE to make a claim for compensation arising from HELEN’s death.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
21 April 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has a telephone conversation with his sister and states he no longer qualifies for the pension.	PENSION
		In the telephone conversation with his sister, PETER asks her to email “Sophia” in China on his behalf because he “didn’t want her to feel that [he] wasn’t … [he] was upset with her and [he] wasn’t talking to her anymore”.	QQ
28 April 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER telephones Singapore Airlines to check availability of flights to China departing on 18 or 19 May 2017 and returning on 7 or 8 June 2017. PETER telephones Flight Centre to check availability of flights to Shenyang in China from 18 May to 5 June 2017.	CHINA
1 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER telephones Asiana Airlines, enquiring about flying from Sydney to Shenyang. PETER telephones Lai Lai Travel to obtain a quote for an airfare to China, departing Adelaide on 16 – 18 May and returning on 5 – 10 June 2017.	CHINA
5 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
7 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER calls SOPHIA and tells her about his travel plans to China.	QQ/CHINA
8 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER telephones Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation regarding HELEN’s pension and is advised of eligibility for SPOUSAL BENEFIT.	SPOUSAL BENEFIT
9 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER telephones BENNETT AGED CARE GROUP and requests a doctor’s letter confirming HELEN was at VV for medical reasons so her residual pension could be transferred to himself.	SPOUSAL BENEFIT
9 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	SOPHIA sends a message to PETER.	QQ/CHINA
14 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER telephones SOPHIA and they discuss SOPHIA collecting PETER from the airport.	QQ/CHINA
16 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER and SOPHIA exchange messages regarding SOPHIA collecting PETER from the airport. PETER telephones SOPHIA to arrange for her to collect him from the airport.	QQ/CHINA
17 May 2017	Ex P44	Police search the WATERFALL GULLY RESIDENCE and locate travel items and items of a sexual nature.	CHINA
22 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER has telephone conversation with FREEDOM INSURANCE.	FUNERAL INSURANCE
26 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER submits application form for SPOUSAL BENEFIT to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.	SPOUSAL BENEFIT
After 26 May 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER’s application is approved and PETER commences receiving an annual pension of $31,659.68.	SPOUSAL BENEFIT
11 July 2017	Ex P45 (Agreed Facts)	PETER is arrested for murder.

KEY FOR CHRONOLOGY
BENNETT AGED CARE GROUP	Nursing home group which incorporates Valley View Nursing Home.
BING	Search engine.
FREEDOM INSURANCE	Insurance provider.
GIORGIO	Eugenia ‘Ginny’ Giorgio (former neighbour of the deceased).
GRANT	Grant Dansie (son of the deceased and the accused).
HELEN	Helen Dansie (the deceased).
OTR	On The Run store.
PETER	Peter Dansie (the accused).
PUBLIC ADVOCATE	David Cripps and then Suzanne Rozman.
QEH	Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
QQ	A messaging application.
RAH	Royal Adelaide Hospital.
ROZMAN	Suzanne Rozman (the Public Advocate and David Cripps’ replacement).
RP7	Rockpool 7.
SACAT	The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
SPOUSAL BENEFIT	The pension paid to the accused following the deceased’s death. It represents 67% of the pension that was payable to the deceased.
VV	Valley View Nursing Home