R v Dennis - [2009] NSWSC 1357

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:
R v Matthew Allen James Dennis [2009] NSWSC 1357

JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S):
2009/5917

HEARING DATE(S):
12/10/09-29/10/09

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 December 2009

PARTIES:
Regina (Crown)
Matthew Allen James Dennis (Accused)

JUDGMENT OF:
Barr AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Mr Wayne Creasey QC (Crown)
Mr John Spencer (Accused)

SOLICITORS:
Ms Brigid Callanan (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Mr Andrew Scali (Legal Aid Commission)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

CATEGORY:
Sentence

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Matthew Allen Dennis, I sentence you to imprisonment for the murder of the child I have called J. I set a non-parole period of 20 years. It will be taken to have commenced on 17 April 2008 and will expire on 16 April 2028. You will become eligible for release to parole on that day. The balance of the term of the sentence will be six years and eight months, expiring on 16 December 2034.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST
ACTING JUSTICE BARR
Friday 4 December 2009
2009/5917 R v MATTHEW ALLEN DENNIS
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Matthew Allen Dennis, has been found guilty by the jury of the murder of a child whom I shall call J. J, the son of Ms Kristle Malcolm, was 23 months old. Ms Malcolm lived with J, and an older child in a flat in Dubbo. She formed a romantic attachment to the offender, who regularly visited her at the flat and used to stay overnight a few times a week. Also living at the flat at the time of the events giving rise to the charge was a sixteen year old girl whom I shall call T. T was a student who minded J and his sister from time to time.
On the evening of 20 March 2008 Ms Malcolm and T were at home with J. Ms Malcolm’s elder child was visiting relatives in another town. Ms Malcolm and the offender corresponded by mobile telephone during the evening and each was aware that the other was intending to spend the evening with others. There was some disagreement about that and they exchanged spiteful messages early in the evening. The offender arrived at the flat during the evening and Ms Malcolm was there. The offender had come to collect some of his belongings and stayed for a short time. The two spoke and settled their differences. The offender left to attend his social engagement. Ms Malcolm stayed until about 11.00 pm when she left in the company of the offender’s cousin. They went to an hotel different from the one where the offender was bound. Later on the text messaging resumed and the offender expressed some irritation that Ms Malcolm and her companion were apparently intending to stay out for a good part of the night. Again, the exchanges became spiteful. Until about 02.00 am J was in the…

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 Dennis

Details

AGLC: R v Dennis [2009] NSWSC 1357
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1357
Decision Date: 4 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dennis was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Dennis, contested a conviction for a serious crime. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence that was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. The trial court had ruled the evidence admissible, and Dennis was subsequently convicted and sentenced.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained through the unlawful search and seizure should be excluded under the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence. Dennis argued that the evidence should not be admitted as it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the evidence was crucial in securing Dennis's conviction, and excluding it would not serve justice.

The High Court held that the exclusionary rule must be applied to uphold the integrity of the legal process and protect individual rights. The Court found that the evidence obtained through the unlawful search and seizure was indeed inadmissible as it violated Dennis's constitutional rights. The Court further held that the exclusion of this evidence was necessary to deter future unlawful conduct by law enforcement officers. Consequently, the Court quashed Dennis's conviction and ordered a retrial without the inadmissible evidence.

The Court did not make any further orders as the matter was to be remitted to the trial court for a retrial, excluding the evidence obtained through the unlawful search and seizure. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards and the need to exclude evidence obtained in breach of these protections.

Orders