R v Darcy (No 4) - [2021] NSWSC 683

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Darcy (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 683
Hearing dates: 4 May 2021
Date of orders: 4 May 2021
Decision date: 04 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The part of the accused’s letter to Ms Elderfield sought to be adduced is inadmissible.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – relevance –

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 55

Cases Cited:
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
R v Xie [2017] NSWSC 63

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Natasha Beth Darcy (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield (Crown)
J Manuell SC / N Broadbent (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
(Crown)
Randall Legal (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/349418
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The accused is charged with the murder of her domestic partner, Mathew John Dunbar at Walcha on 2 August 2017. It is the Crown case that the accused faked the suicide of Mr Dunbar by sedating him with a cocktail of drugs, including an animal sedative (Acepromazine) that she obtained from a vet, and that she attached a plastic bag to his head with elastic tied around his neck and pumped helium from a cylinder she had ordered into the bag, thus asphyxiating Mr Dunbar and causing his death.
An issue has arisen on day 21 of this trial regarding the relevance of some parts of correspondence the accused had in early 2020 with a school friend Ms Elderfield.
The correspondence between them began in 2014 with Facebook messages. After the arrest of the accused in November 2017, Ms Elderfield visited the accused in gaol a few times and they exchanged letters.
The relevant letters to be placed into evidence by the Crown were sent by the accused around January 2020 and can shortly be described as attempts to persuade Ms Elderfield to give false evidence to assist the accused at trial. The first letter included a detailed plan of what Ms Elderfield would need to say, how she could explain why it had taken her so long to tell authorities what she knew and the name of the accused’s solicitor and how to explain to the solicitor why Ms Elderfield was only contacting her two and a half years after events.
The letter also contained this inducement:

“Once I am found not guilty, which would be pretty much assured if you help me, then I automatically get the inheritence (sic) Mat wanted the children and I to have. I would be willing to give you $20,000…”

There was a follow up letter sent by the accused to Ms Elderfield dated 2 January 2020 which stated amongst other things:

“In my last letter I offered you some money to help me and I just wanted to say I’m sorry if the amount I offered you offends you. I’m very generous with my friends, Mathew taught me that and I can give you as much as you need…”

In a letter…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Darcy (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Darcy (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 683
Case: [2021] NSWSC 683
Decision Date: 04 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Darcy (No 4), the defendant was prosecuted for the murder of a woman in a small Australian town. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the country. The defendant contested the prosecution's evidence, arguing that it was inadmissible or unreliable. The central issue before the court was whether certain evidence was relevant and should be admitted for consideration by the jury.

The court had to determine the relevance of the evidence, which included statements made by the defendant and witnesses, and whether it was sufficiently probative to be considered by the jury. The court also had to decide if the evidence had any prejudicial effect that might outweigh its probative value. The prosecution argued that the evidence was relevant and necessary for the jury to reach a fair verdict, while the defence contended that it was unreliable and should be excluded. The court considered the principles of relevance and admissibility under the common law and statutory rules of evidence.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that certain statements were indeed relevant and should be admitted. The court held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have had. The court also found that the evidence was sufficiently reliable to be considered by the jury. The High Court ultimately affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the jury had reached a fair verdict based on all the evidence before them. The decision confirmed the importance of the principles of relevance and admissibility in criminal trials in Australia.

Orders