R v Dargin - [2000] NSWSC 710

CITATION: R v Dargin [2000] NSWSC 710 revised - 23/08/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70041/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3, 5, 6 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 July 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Crown)
v
WILLIAM ROY DARGIN
(Offender)

JUDGMENT OF: Ireland AJ

COUNSEL : C: Mr H Hamilton
O: Mr E Wilson

SOLICITORS: C: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
O: Central Southern Aboriginal Corp

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - sentencing - murder - intent of grievous bodily harm - sexual assault - guilty plea - intoxication

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing Act 1989
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 161
Crimes Act 1900, s 61J
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44

CASES CITED: R v Dodd (1991) 57 ACrimR 349
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR(NSW) 554
R v Isaacs (1997) 90 ACrimR 587
R v Coleman (1990) 47 ACrimR 306
R v Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58
R v Bossie (NSWSC, Studdert J, 16/4/92, unrep)
R v Broughton (NSWSC, Smart J, 30/5/94, unrep)
R v Duke (NSWSC, McInerney J, 15/9/94, unrep)
R v Lorenzo (NSWCCA, 22/5/95, unrep)
R v Previtera (1997) 94 ACrimR 76
R v Sharpe (NSWSC, Wood J, 9/9/92, unrep)
R v Sullivan (NSWSC, Simpson J, 14/7/94, unrep)
R v Veitch (NSWSC, Hunt J, 19/3/91, unrep)
R v Morgan (1993) 70 ACrimR 368
R v Champion (1992) 64 ACrimR 244

DECISION: See paras 61 and 62 (sentenced to 19 years imprisonment with 14 years non-parole).

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

IRELAND AJ

FORBES: Thursday, 6 July 2000

70041/99 - REGINA -v- WILLIAM ROY DARGIN
SENTENCE

1    HIS HONOUR: The offender, William Roy Dargin, was indicted before me on a charge that he, on 30 September 1998, did murder Estelle Winifred Featherstone. To that charge he pleaded guilty and was convicted. Accordingly, he is for sentence today.
2    The offender asks that in passing sentence I take into account an offence of aggravated sexual assault of the victim committed by him contemporaneously with the homicide. The Crown Prosecutor consents to this course which I propose to follow, a Form 1 having been completed.
3    In order to determine the sentence to be imposed, it is my duty to find the facts which gave rise to the offence. In doing so, the relevant standard of proof is the criminal standard, being proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4    I am satisfied to the relevant degree that Estelle Winifred Featherstone ("the victim") died on the evening of 30 September 1998 as a result of multiple head and neck injuries inflicted upon her by William Roy Dargin, to whom I shall refer as "the offender".
5    The autopsy report of Professor John Hilton, which forms part of Exhibit B, discloses that the victim sustained multiple, gross comminuted fractures to both the lower and upper jaw, the latter involving the sinuses.
6    The neck injuries included bilateral fractures of the hyoid bone and damage to the thyroid cartilage suggestive of attempted strangulation. Professor Hilton further described the injury to the genital area comprised of a…

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 Dargin

Details

AGLC: R v Dargin [2000] NSWSC 710
Case: [2000] NSWSC 710
Decision Date: 6 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants were charged with the murder of a woman in the state of Victoria, which occurred in the early hours of the morning following a night of heavy drinking. Both defendants had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, with a plea that they did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm, only to commit a sexual assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the defendants could be found guilty of murder despite their plea that they did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to consider the defendants' state of intoxication at the time of the offence, and whether this affected their capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentence given the defendants' guilty pleas and the mitigating factor of intoxication.

The court found that the defendants were guilty of murder. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that the defendants had the requisite intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as evidenced by their actions leading up to the offence. The court considered that the defendants were heavily intoxicated but found that this did not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. In sentencing, the court took into account the defendants' guilty pleas and their level of intoxication but ultimately imposed life sentences for the murder.

The court ordered that both defendants be detained for life, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for public protection. The court also noted the tragic circumstances of the victim and the impact on her family. The defendants were further ordered to serve a non-parole period of 20 years before being eligible for parole consideration.

Orders