R v Darcy (No. 9) - [2022] NSWSC 135

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Darcy (No. 9) [2022] NSWSC 135
Hearing dates: 22 October 2021
Date of orders: 21 February 2022
Decision date: 21 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
For the offence of the murder of Mathew John Dunbar, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 40 years, comprising a non-parole period of 30 years, commencing on 18 November 2017 and ending on 17 November 2047, with a balance term of 10 years ending on 17 November 2057. You are eligible for release on parole on 17 November 2047.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – murder – conviction after trial – offence committed in the home – significant degree of planning – set up to make the murder appear to be suicide - domestic violence offence – offence in high range of objective seriousness - no remorse – prospects of rehabilitation unfavourable given continuing denial of responsibility – whether a life sentence should be imposed – community interest in protection and specific deterrence satisfied by lesser sentence considering age of offender at earliest release date – life sentence not imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006(NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 54A & 61

Cases Cited:
CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600;
229 A Crim R 354; [2013] HCA 38
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R 82
R v Sean Lee King [2013] NSWSC 801
Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160

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

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

remarks on sentence

Natasha Darcy met Mathew John Dunbar in 2014. A kind man, generous to a fault, he wanted to share his love and good fortune with a partner whom he could provide for, care for and cherish. He wanted that person to be Natasha Darcy. He provided a home for her and her three children, money for what they needed, generous gifts and his attention, his time, his love and support.
On 2 August 2017, having successfully harangued Mathew to change his Will in 2015 providing for her to be the sole beneficiary of his large and valuable farming property in Walcha, presciently called “Pandora”, Natasha Darcy murdered him.
She did this by sedating him with a mix of drugs and then placing a helium gas cylinder by the bedside and an exit bag arrangement over his head, fastened around his neck with elastic. She then turned on the helium gas to kill him, staging the scene to look like suicide. He was 42 years old.
Ms Darcy’s iPhone and computer search records reveal that this murder had been months in the planning,…

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. 9)

Details

AGLC: R v Darcy (No. 9) [2022] NSWSC 135
Case: [2022] NSWSC 135
Decision Date: 21 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Darcy involved the defendant, Darcy, who was convicted of murder following a trial. The murder was premeditated and took place in Darcy's home. The act was meticulously planned to appear as a suicide. Darcy had a history of domestic violence, which compounded the gravity of the offence. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the high level of premeditation and the absence of remorse shown by Darcy, who continued to deny responsibility for his actions. The prospects for rehabilitation were deemed unfavourable due to Darcy's persistent denial.

The legal issues before the court included whether a life sentence should be imposed, given the severity of the crime and Darcy's lack of remorse. The court also considered the community's interest in protection and specific deterrence. The court determined that these interests could be adequately addressed by a sentence that did not impose a life sentence, particularly considering Darcy's age at the earliest possible release date. The court found that a lesser sentence would sufficiently serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community.

The reasoning of the court was that while the offence was of extreme seriousness, the court could balance the need for specific and general deterrence with the prospects for rehabilitation and the age of the offender at the earliest release date. The court concluded that a life sentence was not necessary to adequately address the community's interest in protection and deterrence. Instead, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence while considering these mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court were that Darcy was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding parole eligibility and the length of the sentence. The court did not impose a life sentence, finding that the circumstances warranted a lesser sentence that still met the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community.

Orders