R v Dent

[2022] SASC 65

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v DENT

[2022] SASC 65

Judgment of the Honourable Justice David  

30 June 2022

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER

The accused, Ms Wendie-Sue Dent, is charged with the murder of her partner, Mr David Albert Arthur Lawrence on or about 2 December 2015. The cause of death was found to be the toxic effects of opiates. On the prosecution case, Ms Dent administered a fatal combination of her prescription medication to the deceased in the day or days preceding his death, either in a single fatal dose or in several fatal doses.

The prosecution case is a circumstantial one. It relies on Ms Dent’s financial motive to commit the offence, her efforts to isolate the deceased from his family and friends in the days preceding his death, and lies told by Ms Dent as to the cause and circumstances of his death.

Ms Dent denied the offence in a record of interview with police. She did not give evidence at trial.

Held, per David J:

1.      The accused is guilty of murder.

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321, considered.

R v DENT
[2022] SASC 65

Criminal — Trial By Judge Alone:

DAVID J:

Overview

1. The accused, Ms Wendie-Sue Dent, is charged with the murder of her partner, Mr David Albert Arthur Lawrence (the ‘deceased’) on or about 2 December 2015.  The couple met in mid-2014 and had been living together in a house the deceased owned at 7 Godfrey Court, Morphett Vale (the ‘Premises’) for approximately 18 months prior to his death.

2. On the morning of 3 December 2015 at 6:07am, Ms Dent telephoned emergency services and reported that she had just discovered David Lawrence deceased in their bed.  The cause of his death was eventually established to be the toxic effect of opiates (namely, morphine, codeine and tramadol).  Ms Dent had been prescribed each of those drugs for what was said to be a chronic pain condition and they had been dispensed to her in large quantities in the months preceding the deceased’s death.  A tumbler of brightly coloured drink was found on the bedside table next to the deceased.  The liquid within the tumbler contained trace quantities of all active drugs detected in the deceased’s blood including, tramadol, morphine, codeine, diazepam, paracetamol and naproxen.  

3. On the prosecution case, Ms Dent administered a fatal combination of her prescription medication to the deceased in the day or days preceding his death, either in a single dose or in multiple doses.  Empty medication packages were located inside the Premises and in the outside bin (at the front of the Premises).  They were examined for the presence of DNA.  The deceased was excluded as having contributed to any of the DNA extracted from the packaging.  The prosecution contends it is not a reasonable possibility that the deceased either deliberately or accidentally administered a fatal combination of drugs to himself.

4. The prosecution case against Ms Dent is a circumstantial one.  It is alleged that she had a financial motive to murder the deceased.  In 2014, she was named as the beneficiary of his superannuation fund which, as at 24 November 2015, held a balance of approximately $175,000.  Ms Dent was also the executor and main beneficiary of the deceased’s ‘handmade will’ prepared by her sister, Ms Dianne Dent, and signed on 25 September 2015 (about nine weeks before the deceased’s death).  Under the will, Ms Dent stood to inherit the Premises, which was unencumbered by a mortgage. As at December 2015 it was valued at approximately $235,000.  

5. There was no suggestion that the will was a forgery.  However, on the prosecution case, there was evidence that Ms Dent was concerned the deceased was ‘revisiting’ his will.  She raised the topic of the deceased’s will with Mr Kym Lawrence (the deceased’s brother) on 29 November 2015.  A computer seized from the home of Ms Dianne Dent in February 2017 contained an electronic document in almost identical terms to the signed will.  Metadata of that document showed that it was last accessed and modified on 1 December 2015, shortly before the deceased’s death.  A copy of the will was located by Ms Susan Lawrence (the deceased’s sister) at the Premises in February 2017.  It contained some of the minor alterations evident on the electronic document which suggested it had been sent after 1 December 2015.  It was pre-witnessed by Ms Dianne Dent and her partner, Mr Barry Gibson (but unsigned by the deceased). 

6. To prove Ms Dent had a financial motive to commit the offence, the prosecution also relies on evidence which suggests that Ms Dent expressed her interest in the estate almost immediately after the deceased’s death.

7. There was also evidence that the deceased had spent a large amount of money on the purchase of a motorhome for use by himself and Ms Dent, and that he expected her to repay her share of the purchase price after she received the settlement of a personal injury claim.  The deceased also spent money on a used car for Ms Dent, loaned money to her brother, and paid some of her legal fees.  There was evidence he expected her to repay at least some of that money.

8. The prosecution also relies on evidence as to the decline in their relationship during the months and weeks leading up to his death.  The prosecution alleges that Ms Dent had a strong financial motive to murder the deceased before he ended their relationship and/or changed his will.

9. The prosecution also contends that Ms Dent made efforts to isolate the deceased in the days leading up to his death, by telling his friends and family not to telephone or visit him because he was suffering from back pain and needed bed rest.  There was no dispute that the deceased was experiencing a level of back pain in late November 2015, but on the prosecution case there was no medical basis for him to be confined to bed.  Indeed, the medical advice was to the contrary.

10. Between 30 November and 3 December 2015, the deceased did not answer any telephone calls made to his mobile telephone, nor did he respond to any text messages.  This was unusual for him as he was known to be responsive to contact from friends and family, and his birthday was on 1 December.  There was also a text message from a school friend as to the death of his friend’s father to which he did not respond.  He also failed to attend a birthday dinner without explanation.

11. On the prosecution case, there was no medical reason for Ms Dent to isolate the deceased in the days leading up to his death.  Rather, it was to afford her the opportunity to administer the fatal dose or fatal doses of drugs and commit the offence of murder.

12. The prosecution also relies on the conduct of Ms Dent on 3 December 2015. At 5:15am, at a time when the deceased is likely to have already been dead, and Ms Dent was aware that he was dead, she telephoned the National Australia Bank telephone banking number.  The line was open for 49 seconds.  She does not telephone emergency services for an ambulance until 6:07am.  Her delay in contacting the ambulance, and her phone call to her bank, is alleged to be inconsistent with the deceased having died in circumstances unexpected by Ms Dent.

13. The prosecution also alleges that Ms Dent told many lies in the days and months following the deceased’s death as to the circumstances in which she found him and her understanding as to the cause of his death.  She told others that the deceased had died of a tumour, asbestosis and diverticulitis.  The prosecution contends that Ms Dent told deliberate lies out of a consciousness of guilt to lay a false trail to direct suspicion away from her, or, to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances in which he died.  The prosecution submits that the police did not suspect her of having murdered the deceased when she made the relevant statements, nor was she aware of the cause of his death.

14. Ms Dent was interviewed by police in Dapto, New South Wales on 17 February 2017.  During the interview, she denied the offence.

15. Ms Dent did not give evidence at trial.

16. Senior counsel for Ms Dent contends that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.  The defence submits that there is no direct evidence that Ms Dent administered the fatal drugs to the deceased and the circumstantial evidence is incapable of proving that she did so.  Moreover, defence counsel contends that the evidence is incapable of excluding other reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence, including that the deceased self‑administered the fatal dose or fatal doses of drugs for pain relief.  Defence counsel submits that the evidence supports a finding that Ms Dent and the deceased were in a happy and loving relationship. Defence counsel argues that Ms Dent had no financial motive to murder the deceased and her actions in relation to the deceased’s will and superannuation fund are equally consistent with preserving her position in the dispute over the deceased’s estate which was instituted by his family shortly after his death.

17. Defence counsel also contends that even if the prosecution has proved that Ms Dent administered the drugs, it has not established that Ms Dent had a specific intention to kill or inflict really serious bodily harm to the deceased.  Rather, the prosecution has not excluded that she administered some or all of the drugs for pain relief but was mistaken as to their potential lethality.

    Elements of the offence

18. To prove the offence of murder, the prosecution must establish each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:

    1.Ms Dent deliberately and voluntarily administered a lethal dose or doses of medication to the deceased;

    2.That this act or acts caused the death of the deceased;

    3.That the act or acts causing the deceased’s death were unlawful, that is, the act or acts were performed without any lawful excuse or justification; and

    4.At the time Ms Dent performed the act or acts causing the deceased’s death, she had a specific intention to kill the deceased or to cause him really serious bodily harm.

    Legal directions

19. It is not necessary for a court having conducted a trial by judge alone to set out the standard directions of which a judge is bound to be aware.  In any event, I have applied the following principles in reaching my verdict.

20. Ms Dent is presumed innocent unless and until her guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  This requirement extends to proof beyond reasonable doubt of every element of the charged offence.  To the extent that Ms Dent has put forward a defence or innocent explanation, she does not have to prove it.  The burden of proving the charge lies wholly upon the prosecution.  It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or to demonstrate that an accused person is probably guilty.  Ms Dent cannot be found guilty of the offence unless the evidence satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt.

21. In these reasons, if the word ‘proved’, ‘established’ or ‘satisfied’ is used, this means to a standard beyond reasonable doubt.

22. In this case, the prosecution relies upon a body of circumstantial evidence to prove the offence.  A guilty verdict cannot be returned unless the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.  Guilt must be the only rational inference the proven facts allow me to draw. 

23. There are two steps in approaching a circumstantial case: first, to consider the facts upon which the prosecution relies and decide what facts are established by the evidence; and second, to consider what inference or inferences can be drawn from the established facts.  The latter step requires a consideration of the combined strength of the facts established by the evidence.  There cannot be a guilty verdict unless the circumstances exclude any reasonable explanation consistent with the accused’s innocence.  In other words, before Ms Dent can be found guilty of the offence, her guilt must be the only rational inference to be drawn from the facts or circumstances I accept are established on the evidence.

24. In this trial, Ms Dent elected not to give evidence.  That is Ms Dent’s right, and because it is her right, it must not be used against her nor treated as an admission.   It cannot be used to fill any gaps in the prosecution's evidence.  It does not make the prosecution's evidence stronger or more persuasive.  To use Ms Dent’s silence against her, in practical terms, would deprive her of her right to remain silent.  It is for the prosecution to prove the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Evidence was adduced from the following experts: Dr Neil Langlois (pathology), Professor Jason White (pharmacology), Ms Heather Lindsay (toxicology), Mr Damien Abarno (DNA), Ms Kirsty Summersides (forensic accountancy), and Mr Nathan Kerr (electronic crime).  The expert evidence of a handwriting analyst was the subject of agreed facts.[1] 

    [1]    Agreed Facts (Exhibit P113) at [36]–[38].

26. As to expert evidence, the usual rule is that witnesses can only give evidence of facts, not opinions or conclusions drawn from those facts.  One exception to that rule is that a properly qualified expert can give evidence of their opinion on matters within their expertise. 

27. There are two key rules in assessing expert evidence.  First, it is for the trier of fact to decide what evidence to accept and what weight to give to it, and as with any other witness, there is no requirement to blindly adopt the opinion of an expert witness simply because they are an expert.  Second, an expert witness is to be assessed in the same way as any other witness, but with other considerations in mind.  These include: an assessment of whether the witness appeared impartial or biased; how their evidence sat against other accepted evidence in the case; and whether the witness had been referred to all the relevant facts in forming an opinion. 

28. In this case, there is no dispute as to the expertise of any of the expert witnesses.  The issue is what inferences should be drawn from the evidence given by each expert witness in the context of the other evidence in the case.  Each counsel submits that the relevant expert evidence supports their respective case, or at the very least, does not undermine their case. 

29. The prosecution adduced evidence (without objection) that Ms Dent (in her statement to Senior Constable Kathryn Cain) admitted to giving the deceased valium for his back pain on two occasions in the days preceding his death.[2]  On the prosecution case, that evidence is relevant to show the circumstances in which the deceased consumed or was administered any medication detected in his blood, in the days or day preceding his death.  On the defence case, the evidence was relevant to establish that the deceased was experiencing such a high level of back pain that he was prepared to take her valium.  It is not evidence of Ms Dent’s propensity to administer her prescription drugs to others.  I have not used the evidence that Ms Dent was prepared to give her prescription medication to the deceased to reason that she is a bad person and therefore more likely to be guilty of the offence.

    [2]    T217.1–16.

30. The prosecution also adduced evidence (without objection) that Ms Dent offered her prescription medication to Mr Jeffrey Read, Ms Susan Hussey, and Ms Deborah Lawrence for pain relief.[3]  On the defence case, this evidence is relevant to show that Ms Dent had previously offered her medication to others for pain relief or a palliative reason.  This was in turn relevant to the question of her intention, should I be satisfied that she administered the fatal dose or fatal doses of morphine and tramadol to the deceased. Again, the use of the evidence is for that limited purpose.  It is not evidence of Ms Dent’s propensity to administer her prescription drugs to others, nor have I reasoned that she is a bad person and for that reason more likely to be guilty of the offence.

    [3]    Evidence of Jeffrey Read: T627.1–19; Susan Hussey: T882.12–883.27; Deborah Lawrence: T1219.8–26.

31. There was evidence adduced (without objection) that Ms Dent sent Ms Katrina Bishop (the deceased’s former love interest) a series of ‘foul-mouthed’ messages.[4] That evidence was irrelevant. I have put the evidence to one side and not used it in my deliberations. More specifically, it has not been used to reason that Ms Dent is a bad or vindictive person and for that reason more likely to be guilty of the offence.

    [4]    T711.27–712.23.

    Prosecution case

32. I now turn to the prosecution case. I begin with the forensic evidence which consists of evidence from the pathologist as to the cause of death; the toxicology and pharmacology evidence as to the drugs located in the deceased’s blood and the drugs detected in the liquid in the tumbler; and evidence from a forensic scientist as to DNA extracted from the packaging of the drugs seized from the Premises.

    Post-mortem

33. Dr Langlois performed an autopsy upon the deceased on 7 December 2015.  He did not attend the Premises to view the body on 3 December 2015.  Nor did he inspect the body at any earlier time.[5]  Dr Langlois commenced his autopsy with an external examination of the deceased: he said the deceased was 62 years of age, his weight was 93 kg, and he measured approximately 174 cm in length.  He found no evidence of external trauma to the deceased.[6]

    [5]    T1063.15–20.

    [6]    T1058.2–22.

34. Dr Langlois then undertook an internal examination of the deceased.  He concluded there were no internal abnormalities which contributed to the deceased’s death.[7]

    Renal tumour

    [7]    T1066.29–1067.23, 1070.20–5, 1070.33–1071.7, 1072.26–36, 1072.38–1073.19, 1074.4–6.

35. On the right kidney, Dr Langlois observed a dark nodule measuring 0.6 cm which he found to be a renal cell carcinoma (or tumour). He said it is not uncommon in a person of this age to find a small tumour.  He said there was no evidence of the tumour having spread and he considered it was not significant to the cause of death.[8]

    Back Pain

    [8]    T1072.3–19.

36. Dr Langlois said that the examination of the spine is somewhat limited during the post-mortem examination. He said that when the organs are removed from the inside of the body, it allows for an inspection of the vertebral bodies to see if they appear normal.  Dr Langlois conducted a limited inspection by the naked eye to the outside appearance of the vertebral bodies in the body cavity and the marrow of the spine.  He said there was nothing to suggest a significant degenerative disease or anything abnormal for a man of his age.[9]

    [9]    T1086.17–1087.6.

37. Dr Langlois agreed that there are a several possible mechanisms causative of back pain which would not be apparent in a post-mortem examination, including a disc prolapse, muscle spasm, or a soft tissue injury.[10] He said that when a post‑mortem is conducted a deceased person is lying flat so any functional changes to the spine cannot be assessed.[11]  

    Asbestosis

    [10] T1096.27–1097.5.

    [11] T1088.13–6.

38. Dr Langlois did not specifically examine the deceased for asbestosis.  However, he said there was no evidence of asbestosis, such as scarring of the lungs (known as pulmonary asbestos) or the presence of white, hard, fibrous tissue on the chest wall (known as pleural plaques).  Nor was there any evidence of a tumour of the chest (known as mesothelioma).[12]

    Diverticulum

    [12] T1089.22–1090.8.

39. Dr Langlois said diverticulum is an outpouching, common in the large bowel. Diverticular disease or diverticulitis is when the diverticula become inflamed.  He said there was no evidence that the deceased suffered from diverticulitis at an abnormal or excessive level for his age.[13]

    Septicaemia

    [13] T1090.9–23.

1. Dr Langlois said septicaemia is when an infecting agent, usually bacterium, spreads through the body and causes disruption to the major organs.  He said there was no reason to suspect the deceased suffered from sepsis in this case, so he did not conduct specific tests for septicaemia.[14]

   Toxicological analysis

   [14] T1090.24–1091.11.

2. Dr Langlois took a blood sample from the deceased during the post-mortem examination which was the subject of a toxicological analysis.

3. The toxicological analysis was conducted by Ms Lindsay at South Australian Forensic Science Centre (the ‘FSC’).[15] The analysis revealed that the deceased’s blood contained:

   [15] Exhibit P59; Exhibit P60; Exhibit P63.

   ·     0.98 mg per L of morphine;

   ·     0.52 mg per L of codeine;

   ·     approximately 2 mg per L of tramadol;

   ·     approximately 0.25 mg per L of O-desmethyltramadol (a metabolite of tramadol);

   ·     0.12 mg per L of 7-aminonitrazepam (a metabolite of nitrazepam);

   ·     approximately 30 mg per L of paracetamol;

   ·     approximately 20 mg per L of naproxen;

   ·     approximately 0.04 mg per L of diazepam; and

   ·     approximately 0.03 mg per L of nordiazepam.

4. There was no alcohol or illegal drugs detected in the blood.

5. A jar containing liquid and a plastic barrel syringe were also analysed by Ms Lindsay.[16] In relation to the jar, ‘trace’ levels of tramadol, morphine, codeine, diazepam, paracetamol and naproxen were detected in the liquid. As to the syringe, Amoxicillin was detected in dried material within the syringe.  

   [16] Exhibit P61.

6. Dr Langlois said that when considering the toxicity or lethality of a prescription drug, most have no clear level of fatality.  This is because a person’s tolerance of a drug will be determined by numerous factors and will vary from person to person.  In relation to opiate drugs (such as morphine, codeine and tramadol), a person can develop a degree of tolerance over a period of time.  To achieve the same effect, a person will need to take increased amounts of the drug.  The same dose of an opiate drug may have no effect on one person but may render another unconscious.[17]  For these reasons, drug toxicity is referred to as a potential cause of death, rather than a cause of death.

   [17] T1079.11–1080.24.

7. Dr Langlois said that opiate drugs are designed for pain relief, but they mostly also have a sedative side effect.  He said at higher levels of consumption, a person will become unconscious, their breathing will become compromised until they eventually stop breathing and die.[18]

   [18] T1079.35–1080.2.

8. As to the toxicology levels in the present case, Dr Langlois said that he considers that morphine at 0.98 mg per L of blood is a potentially fatal level of the drug.[19]  He said that codeine at 0.52 mg per L of blood might be considered potentially toxic, but he does not consider it potentially fatal on its own.  However, codeine will exacerbate the toxic effects of morphine.[20]  He said codeine is typically found in a combined preparation of paracetamol, for example, Panadeine Forte.[21]

   [19] T1080.28–32.

   [20] T1081.10–7.

   [21] T1082.2–9.

9. Dr Langlois said that he would attribute some part of the detected morphine in the deceased’s blood to codeine which has been broken down in the body.[22]  However, if the deceased had consumed codeine very shortly before his death, it would not yet have broken down to morphine and the detected morphine levels could not be attributed at all to codeine.[23]

   [22] T1082.26–9.

   [23] T1099.5–9.

10. Dr Langlois said tramadol at 2 mg per L of blood is a potentially fatal level of the drug.  Further, tramadol will increase the potential toxicity of morphine.[24]

    [24] T1081.18–24.

11. Dr Langlois was unable to say how long before death the deceased consumed the various drugs.[25]

    Cause of death

    [25] T1100.1–4.

12. Dr Langlois expressed the opinion that the cause of the deceased’s death was the toxic effects of opiate drugs (morphine, codeine and tramadol).[26]  He said there is no competing natural cause of death.[27] He expected that the high levels of morphine and tramadol and the presence of codeine meant that the combined amount of opiate drugs in the deceased’s system would initially have rendered him confused and tired. The deceased would then have progressed into a coma, stopped breathing and died. Dr Langlois said that a person could have periods of consciousness during that progression.[28]

    [26] T1080.34–1081.1.

    [27] T1083.24–7.

    [28] T1085.14–34.

13. As to the timing of the deceased’s death, Dr Langlois said that he considers that he died several hours before the body was refrigerated at the FSC on 3 December 2015 at 11:15am. He could not be any more precise as to the timing of his death.[29]

    [29] T1063.9–13, 1093.17–22.

    Pharmacology evidence

14. The prosecution called evidence from Professor White, a Professor of Pharmacology. In relation to this matter, he was provided with a report of the toxicology results of the blood sampled from the deceased,[30] as summarised above.

    Deceased’s blood sample

    [30] See Exhibit P63.

15. Professor White gave evidence as to the properties of the various drugs detected in the deceased’s blood sample.

    Morphine

16. As to morphine, Professor White said that it is an opioid drug used to relieve pain of a moderate to severe intensity.[31]  He said it has a general sedative effect.  It also decreases respiration, so a person’s breathing will slow and become shallow with a risk of death if the person does not obtain enough oxygen.  He said morphine can also cause nausea and vomiting, particularly in people who are less accustomed to consuming the drug.  He said a person’s balance may also be affected.[32]

    [31] T1104.19–22.

    [32] T1105.10–29.

17. Professor White said that a person taking morphine daily is likely to reach their level of tolerance after two weeks, with more than 50 per cent of that tolerance having been reached in the first week.[33]

    [33] T1122.20–8.

18. Professor White said that there are two main metabolites of morphine: morphine-3-glucuronide (‘M3G’) and morphine-6-glucuronide (‘M6G’).  M3G does not have an opioid effect, whereas M6G has an opioid effect similar to morphine itself.[34]

    [34] T1108.3–26.

19. As to the commercial product Apotex-Morphine MR, the letters ‘MR’ stand for modified release.  There are other morphine products with the letters ‘SR’ which mean ‘slow-release’ or ‘sustained release’.  Each of those terms means that morphine is gradually absorbed into the stomach.  Typically, a coating over a tablet or capsule will ensure a ‘modified release’ or ‘slow-release’ of the drug.  However, if a modified release or slow-release tablet or capsule is ground down, the coating becomes ineffective and the morphine powder will be easily dissolved into the stomach once swallowed.  Similarly, if the contents of a capsule are emptied into a liquid, the modified release or slow-release capacity of the capsule will be lost, and the morphine will be easily dissolved into the stomach.[35]

    [35] T1109.26–1110.30.

20. Professor White said that morphine consumed at higher levels is dangerous because it will block signals to the brain indicating that there is insufficient oxygen and too much carbon dioxide in the blood.  A ‘partial block’ to the brain will slow down breathing.  In the case of a fatal level of morphine, a ‘complete block’ will occur and the person will stop breathing.[36]  When a person dies as a result of an opioid drug, their consciousness will decrease along with their breathing and they will eventually die.[37]

    [36] T1111.5–17.

    [37] T1112.5–8.

21. As to the toxicology results in the present case, Professor White said that morphine at a level of 0.98 mg per L of blood is a potentially lethal concentration.  He said it is a concentration level which would not normally be expected for therapeutic use, except in palliative care.[38]

    [38] T1119.37–1120.8.

22. Professor White said that a person would need to consume about 20 tablets of 100 mg slow-release morphine, possibly more, to reach a concentration of 0.98 mg per L if they were all taken over a short period of time.  However, if the tablets were taken over several days, a person would need to consume about 20 tablets of 100 mg slow-release morphine per day to produce a concentration of 0.98 mg per L.[39]

    [39] T1123.6–1124.12.

23. In relation to tablets which do not have a slow-release mechanism, or which have been ground down or emptied into liquid, Professor White considers that a person would need to consume fewer tablets to reach that level of concentration.  He said if it is assumed that a person died at the time of the maximum concentration (approximately within an hour or two after consuming the tablets), only seven to 10 tablets would be required to reach that concentration.  However, if a person last consumed the morphine tablets three or more hours earlier, then a person will need to consume a greater number of tablets to achieve that level of concentration.[40]

    [40] T1124.24–38.

24. Professor White said that these are conservative estimates in the sense that they assume that death occurred when the deceased’s morphine concentration was at its highest.  He said it is relatively unlikely that death will occur exactly at that point and the number of tablets required to result in that level of concentration increases as the time since a person has consumed the drug increases.[41]

    [41] T1125.1–7.

25. Professor White said that there is no factor or circumstance in the present case which points to morphine having been consumed by a single dose or by multiple doses over time.[42]  Professor White said that the concentration of morphine in the deceased’s blood is well within the range that is associated with death due to overdose.[43]

    [42] T1126.10–2.

    [43] T1120.20–2.

26. Professor White said that if a person is unaccustomed to taking opioids (or is ‘opioid naive’) and that person consumes one or two 200 mg tablets of morphine, the effect of the drug will be relatively strong.  He said the consumption of one or two 200 mg morphine tablets by an opioid naive person is potentially fatal, and the degree of sedation, respiratory depression, and nausea can be quite marked.[44]  He said that if the tablets are crushed up or emptied into liquid, then he would expect a person to experience those side effects within an hour.  However, if a person consumes slow-release or modified release tablets, with the slow-release mechanism preserved, a person will experience some side effects within an hour, but the effects will continue to increase over the following two to three hours.  As a general proposition, the more tablets taken at once, the quicker the effect on a person.[45]

    [44] T1138.8–21.

    [45] T1140.11–23.

27. Professor White said that morphine is eliminated relatively rapidly from the body.  It changes into the metabolites M3G and M6G which are water soluble and are eliminated in the urine.[46]

    Tramadol

    [46] T1126.5–9.

28. As to tramadol, Professor White said it is an opioid drug which has a similar action to antidepressants.[47]  A commercial name for tramadol is ‘Tramal’.  He said that it has fewer side effects than morphine, particularly in terms of sedation.  There is, however, a risk of respiratory depression.  He considers there is little medical reason to prescribe both morphine and tramadol at the same time.  The only occasion where he considered it appropriate to do so is where a person’s pain has worsened, and it is necessary to prescribe a second opioid drug for one or two days to supplement the main opioid drug.[48]

    [47] T1112.15–20.

    [48] T1112.21–1114.4.

29. Professor White said that the metabolite of tramadol is O-desmethyltramadol.  It is an active metabolite which produces the opioid effect of tramadol.[49]  However, the presence of O-desmethyltramadol in the deceased’s blood does not provide any indication as to when, before death, he consumed tramadol.[50]

    [49] T1117.28–34.

    [50] T1132.1–5.

30. Professor White considers that 2 mg per L of tramadol is a potentially lethal dose, notwithstanding that it is below the average concentration found where death is due to an overdose of tramadol alone.[51]  However, in a case series where tramadol was not the main cause of death but rather a contributory factor, the median concentration was 1.1 mg per L (less than in the present case).  Professor White expresses the opinion that tramadol contributed to the deceased’s death, with morphine having been the main cause of death.[52]

    [51] T1128.15–26.

    [52] T1128.34–1129.10.

31. As to the number of tramadol tablets the deceased would need to have consumed to reach a concentration of 2 mg per L, Professor White said that he would have had to consume 14 or more 50 mg tramadol tablets.  He agreed that only three and a half or four 200 mg tablets of tramadol would result in a concentration of 2 mg per L, assuming they were consumed together or within a relatively short period of a few hours.[53]

    Other drugs

    [53] T1129.18–35.

32. As to Codapane Forte, Professor White said it is a ‘combination medication’ of codeine and paracetamol which is sold under different brand names, including Panadeine Forte.  He said codeine is an opioid drug and its major effect on the body occurs when it is converted into morphine.  Paracetamol is a non-opioid drug taken for pain relief.[54]  A person requires a prescription to obtain Codapane Forte.[55]

    [54] T1114.17–26.

    [55] T1115.10–2.

33. Professor White said 0.52 mg per L of codeine is not a potentially fatal level of the drug on its own.[56]

    [56] T1127.21–4.

34. Professor White said that two 30 mg Panadeine Forte tablets taken at one time will result in a blood concentration of 0.13 mg per L.[57]  Therefore, to reach a concentration of 0.52 mg per L, the deceased must have consumed about eight 30 mg Panadeine Forte tablets in a relatively short period of time.  He said codeine will not accumulate in the blood unless a person takes it every few hours.  The morphine component of codeine (about 10 per cent) will separate.  In this case, where there is a total figure for morphine of 0.98 mg per L, a very small amount (about 0.01 mg L) might have emanated from codeine.[58]

    [57] T1127.30–4.

    [58] T1127.35–1128.14.

35. As to diazepam, Professor White said it is a benzodiazepine drug used for a variety of purposes including the treatment of anxiety and insomnia.  It has a sedative effect and is a muscle relaxant.  He agreed Valium and Antenex are brand names of diazepam.  Professor White said that a person taking diazepam may experience some dizziness and difficulties with balance and coordination.  In a sufficient dose, a person can appear in a drunk‑like state because they do not have as much control over their muscles as normal.  Professor White said that if diazepam or a benzodiazepine drug is combined with an opioid drug a person would experience the following side effects: a greater degree of sedation; their cognitive functioning would become more impaired; and their degree of respiratory depression would increase.  Diazepam or benzodiazepine drugs will enhance the effect of an opioid drug such as morphine.[59]

    [59] T1115.19–1117.16.

36. Professor White said that nordiazepam is an active metabolite of diazepam and contributes to its effects.[60]

    [60] T1117.17–23.

37. Professor White said that in the present case, it is most likely the deceased consumed diazepam a number of hours prior to his death based on the relative concentrations of diazepam and its metabolite, nordiazepam.[61]  He said diazepam taken alone does not create a significant risk of death, but it increases the risk of death if taken with other drugs, in particular opioids.[62]  He said 0.04 mg per L of diazepam is a very low concentration level, which is potentially consistent with a therapeutic dose of the drug.[63]

    [61] T1132.14–20.

    [62] T1118.29–31.

    [63] T1132.6–13.

38. As to nitrazepam, Professor White said that Alodorm (previously known as Mogadon) is a brand name for nitrazepam and is normally prescribed for insomnia.[64]  He said that nitrazepam alone is very unlikely to create a risk of death, however, it can add to the effects of other sedatives, particularly opioids.[65]  He said the presence of its metabolite 7-aminonitrazepam in the deceased’s blood means that he would have taken nitrazepam many hours prior to death.  The deceased would not have been experiencing the effects of nitrazepam at the time of his death.[66]  Professor White agreed that nitrazepam was not present in the deceased’s blood, only its metabolite.  He said that nitrazepam could have been taken a day or possibly multiple days before the deceased’s death.[67] However, he could not be any more specific as to the timing of when it was last consumed.

    [64] T1117.38–1118.2, 1132.32–8.

    [65] T1118.32–5.

    [66] T1133.1–6.

    [67] T1145.30–1146.3.

39. As to naproxen, Professor White said it is an anti-inflammatory drug, similar to a range of drugs used for pain relief, such as ibuprofen.[68]  He said that approximately 20 mg per L of naproxen is consistent with a therapeutic dose and is not significant in terms of the cause of death.[69]

    [68] T1118.3–8.

    [69] T1132.27–9.

40. Professor White said there were no metabolites of morphine or codeine listed in the deceased’s blood.  The main metabolite of interest from codeine is in fact morphine, so it potentially formed part of the concentration of morphine measured.[70]

    Cause of death

    [70] T1119.6–12.

41. Professor White said that the concentration of morphine in the deceased’s blood considered alone was a potentially fatal concentration and would result in death for most persons, except perhaps those with a very high tolerance of the drug.  He said that it is less certain that the concentration of tramadol in the deceased’s blood considered alone would result in death.  However, tramadol will increase the risk of death due to morphine.  The combination of the concentration levels of morphine and tramadol in the deceased’s blood resulted in a very high risk of death.[71]

    Liquid in the tumbler

    [71] T1131.22–32.

42. Trace levels of tramadol, morphine, codeine, diazepam, paracetamol and naproxen were detected in the liquid in the tumbler.[72]

    [72] Exhibit P61.

43. Professor White agreed that some drugs found in the deceased’s blood were not found in the liquid;[73] there did not appear to be trace levels of the metabolites of tramadol (O-desmethyltramadol), nitrazepam (7-aminonitrazepam) or diazepam (nordiazepam).

    [73] T1133.20–1.

44. Professor White was asked about possible ways in which the drugs may have come to be present both in the liquid in the tumbler and in the deceased’s blood stream.  He presented three scenarios.

45. First, he said it could be that the drugs were crushed (removing the slow‑release mechanism) and dissolved in the liquid in the tumbler. The deceased then consumed most of the liquid containing the drugs from the tumbler. A small amount of liquid containing the drugs remained in the tumbler.  The drugs which were consumed by the deceased entered his bloodstream and his body processed the drugs, which explains why the metabolites of tramadol, nitrazepam and diazepam are present in the deceased’s blood but are not detected in the liquid in the tumbler.[74]  In this scenario, if the deceased consumed between seven to 10 100 mg tablets of morphine (not considering the four or more 200 mg tablets of tramadol that would have been required to be consumed to reach the measured concentration), as an opiate naive person, he would have become heavily sedated, his breathing would have slowed, and he would have been unresponsive and in a comatose state.  Professor White said there is a significant probability that he may have vomited at some stage.[75]

    [74] T1134.17–24.

    [75] T1138.22–38.

46. In cross-examination, Professor White agreed that if someone ground up seven 100 mg tablets of morphine and placed them in pineapple juice, the taste of the drugs would not be masked or disguised by the drink.  He said that the taste of morphine is quite strong, so he would not expect the flavour of the juice to neutralise it.  He said tramadol, codeine, diazepam and nitrazepam also have a bitter taste, but it is not as pronounced as morphine.[76]  He said there would also probably be a gritty sensation.   Further, Professor White agreed that if tablets were ground up and placed in a liquid, white residue would typically subside to the bottom of the liquid, unless shaken.[77]

    [76] T1142.13–25.

    [77] T1146.4–22.

1. Professor White was shown a photograph of the tumbler and the small amount of liquid which was removed from the tumbler.  He agreed that if someone had ground up between seven and 10 100 mg morphine tablets and a number of tramadol tablets and placed them in liquid in that tumbler, he would expect to see more than trace elements of the relevant drugs given the quantity of liquid in that glass.[78]

   [78] T1149.14–26.

2. Second, Professor White said that the deceased’s saliva may have been deposited into the liquid while he was drinking from the tumbler.  A person’s saliva may contain drugs (but not metabolites) because the person had orally consumed the drugs very recently.[79]  He said you would expect after 10 minutes or so that a drug in a person’s saliva would dissipate.[80]  In this scenario, the deceased would have consumed the liquid containing the drugs, and within about 10 minutes, the tumbler would have been refilled with another liquid (not necessarily containing the drugs) which the deceased drank. On this second occasion, each of the drugs present in the deceased’s saliva would be deposited back into the liquid in the tumbler when he drank from it.

   [79] T1134.2–9.

   [80] T1135.22–31.

3. Third, Professor White said it is possible that the deceased consumed the combination of drugs found in the liquid several hours earlier and his saliva was subsequently deposited into the liquid in the tumbler.  In this scenario, there is no residual drug in the mouth, but the drugs would be present in his blood circulating around the body.  In this way, the drugs would enter the deceased’s saliva as well. The tumbler would be refilled with another liquid (not necessarily containing drugs) and the deceased may have deposited his saliva into the residual liquid in the tumbler when drinking from it.  He said in that scenario, the drugs’ metabolites would also be deposited into the tumbler.[81]  He said given no metabolites of the drugs found in his blood were detected in the liquid in the tumbler, this scenario is unlikely.[82]

   [81] T1137.3–21.

   [82] T1134.13–6.

4. As to the third scenario, in cross-examination, Professor White said that if the tumbler had been used on multiple occasions and not cleaned in between use, it is possible that traces of drugs could have accumulated over time in the residual liquid.[83]  He agreed that, for example, if the tumbler had been used on multiple occasions to wash down a tablet, he would not expect to find metabolites in the liquid because it is unlikely that a large amount of saliva would have passed into the tumbler.  Professor White said he could not exclude this scenario as an explanation for the lack of metabolites in the liquid in the tumbler.[84]

   [83] T1142.26–35.

   [84] T1143.37–1144.10.

5. He agreed that if the deceased took slow-release opiate drugs (such as morphine and tramadol) in tablet form (which were not crushed up) at regular intervals in the three days prior to his death, he would expect a continuous build‑up which would lead to increased levels of the drugs detected in his blood.  Professor White agreed that the additive effect of continually taking opiates could account for the post-mortem opiate levels in the deceased’s toxicology results.[85]  However, he said that a person would need to consume approximately 20 slow-release 100 mg tablets of morphine per day over that three day period to reach a concentration of 0.98 mg per L.[86]

   Metabolites

   [85] T1146.37–1147.9.

   [86] T1123.6–1124.12.

6. In relation to the significance of the lack of metabolites found in the liquid in the tumbler, evidence was adduced from Ms Lindsay, a Senior Forensic Scientist employed in the toxicology section of the FSC.  Ms Lindsay said that in testing the liquid from the tumbler, she was looking for the metabolites of the drugs detected in that liquid.  There were no metabolites detected in this case.  However, Ms Lindsay could not exclude that there may have been low levels of metabolites present in the liquid below a level that could be detected using their testing instruments.[87]

   [87] T1159.14–25.

7. Ms Lindsay said that they do not look for the metabolites of morphine. They did look for the metabolite of tramadol, O-desmethyltramadol, however it was not detected in the liquid. Ms Lindsay could not exclude that it was present, but at a level below the detection limit for O-desmethyltramadol.[88]

   Opioid drugs and their potential effect upon Ms Dent

   [88] T1161.7–18.

8. Professor White was asked to assume that Ms Dent was prescribed the following:

   ·two tablets of tramadol (200 mg) to be taken four times per day;

   ·one tablet of morphine (100 mg) to be taken twice per day;

   ·one tablet of Antenex (diazepam) (5 mg) to be taken four times per day; and

   ·two tablets of Alodorm (nitrazepam) at night.

9. Professor White was asked about the effects upon Ms Dent from taking that combination of medication.  He said that she is likely to be somewhat sleepy and perhaps a bit unresponsive.  If Ms Dent is accustomed to taking that medication, she is unlikely to experience nausea and dizziness.  However, she may have some problems with her balance.  He said Ms Dent is also likely to experience some impairment of her general cognitive functioning, in that she may become easily confused, have difficulty with more complex matters, and be more likely to make errors of judgement.[89]

   [89] T1141.9–1142.4.

   DNA

10. The prosecution adduced DNA evidence to support their case that the deceased did not self-administer the fatal dose or fatal doses of drugs which caused his death.  On the prosecution case, the absence of the deceased’s DNA from the packaging of some of the drugs located at the Premises supports their case that the deceased had not self-administered the fatal drugs.

11. Mr Abarno is employed by the FSC as a forensic scientist in the biology section.  Mr Abarno gave some general evidence about DNA and how it can be deposited on an item.  He said a DNA profile is more likely to be obtained from a biological substance (such as saliva, blood or semen).  He agreed that a person can deposit DNA on an item by touching it directly.  This is known as ‘contact DNA’.   A person can also deposit DNA on an item by secondary or tertiary transfer, that is without the person directly touching the item.  Mr Abarno said there are many factors which may affect whether a person deposits DNA on an item or whether DNA is located on item.  They include the following matters: how readily a person tends to shed DNA; whether an item is exposed to environmental conditions which can break down DNA; and the extent to which an item is handled before it is examined for DNA.[90]

    [90] T1459.29–1460.24.

12. Mr Abarno said that the FSC received two reference samples in relation to this matter — a buccal swab obtained from Ms Dent and a post-mortem blood sample from the deceased.  A single source DNA profile was extracted from each reference sample and used for comparative analysis.  The FSC also received police exhibits including medication packets and medication bottles.  He said a comparison was conducted between the DNA extracted from the reference samples and some of the police exhibits.[91]  The results of those comparisons were compiled into a report.[92]

    [91] T1444.14–1445.6.

    [92] Exhibit P92.

13. Of significance were the results in relation to a blister pack of Apotex‑Morphine,[93] an Antenex (diazepam) medication bottle containing 28 tablets,[94] and an empty bottle of Antenex (diazepam).[95]

    Blister pack of Apotex-Morphine (Exhibit P16)

    [93] Exhibit P16.

    [94] Exhibit P21.

    [95] Exhibit P8.

14. The blister pack of Apotex-Morphine was located in the cooler bag at the Premises.[96]  Mr Abarno said a technician swabbed the raised pocket areas and displaced foil backing of the blister pack on both sides of the packaging.[97]  This appears to be the area where pressure has been applied by a person to extract the tablets.

    [96] T239.11–240.14. See Agreed Facts (Exhibit P113) at [43].

    [97] Exhibit P93.

15. Mr Abarno said there was a mixed DNA profile obtained from the swab.  In relation to Ms Dent, he considered two alternate propositions or hypotheses.  First, that the sources of the DNA are Ms Dent and an unknown individual, and second, that the sources of the DNA are two unknown individuals.  He said there was a likelihood ratio of greater than 100 billion to one in favour of the first scenario.  That is, it is greater than 100 billion times more likely to have obtained this DNA profile if Ms Dent and an unknown individual were the sources of DNA, rather than two unknown persons.  He said this is extremely strong support that Ms Dent was a contributor to the DNA profile.[98]

    [98] T1449.1–1451.1.

16. In relation to the deceased, Mr Abarno considered the two alternative propositions or hypotheses.  First, that the deceased and an unknown individual were the sources of the DNA, and second, that two unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA.  He said they obtained a likelihood ratio of greater than 100 billion to one that two unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA.  That is extremely strong support that the deceased did not contribute to the DNA.[99]

    [99] T1451.2–13.

17. Mr Abarno agreed that if a person’s DNA had been inside the cooler bag, that DNA could have been deposited onto the Apotex-Morphine packaging by a secondary or tertiary transfer, if there had been contact between the item and the bag.[100]

    Antenex medication bottle (Exhibit P21)

    [100] T1463.17–20.

18. The Antenex medication bottle contained 28 tablets and was located within the striped cooler bag at the Premises.[101]  Swabs were taken from the outer surface of the lid and the outer surface of the bottle.[102]  In relation to the swab that was taken from the outer surface of the lid, Mr Abarno said that a mixed DNA profile of four contributors was extracted.  A likelihood ratio of greater than 100 billion to one in favour of Ms Dent being a contributor to the DNA profile, compared with four unknown individuals being the source of the DNA profile, was obtained.  Mr Abarno said this is extremely strong support in favour of inclusion.[103]

    [101] T242.13–28.

    [102] Exhibit P94.

    [103] T1452.30–1453.6.

19. In relation to the deceased, Mr Abarno considered the two alternative propositions or hypotheses.  First, that the deceased and three unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA, and second, that four unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA.  He said there was a likelihood ratio of 930 million to one that four unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA profile.  That is extremely strong support that the deceased did not contribute to the DNA profile.[104]

    [104] T1453.9–18.

20. In relation to the swab that was taken of the outer surface of the bottle, there was a mixed DNA profile with three contributors.  Mr Abarno said there was a likelihood ratio of greater than 100 billion to one that Ms Dent and two unknown individuals were the sources of DNA, rather than three unknown persons being the sources of the DNA.  He said that is extremely strong support that Ms Dent was a contributor to the DNA profile.[105]

    [105] T1453.33–1454.7.

21. In relation to the deceased, there was a likelihood ratio of greater than 4.5 million to one that three unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA, compared to the hypothesis that the accused and two unknown individuals were the sources of DNA.  He said this is extremely strong support that the deceased did not contribute to the DNA profile obtained.[106]

    Empty bottle of Antenex (Exhibit P8)

    [106] T1453.33–1454.7.

22. An empty bottle of Antenex was located in the bin outside the Premises.[107]  It was swabbed on the outer surface of the lid and on the outer surface of the bottle.[108]

    [107] T201.20–202.2.

    [108] Exhibit P95.

23. In respect of the swabbing of the lid, a mixed DNA profile with four contributors was obtained.  Mr Abarno said there was a likelihood ratio of 370 to one that Ms Dent and three unknown individuals were the sources of DNA, rather than four unknown persons being the sources of the DNA.  He said this is strong support that Ms Dent was a contributor to that DNA profile.[109]

    [109] T1456.15–38.

24. In relation to the deceased, Mr Abarno said there was a likelihood ratio of six to one that three unknown individuals were the sources of the DNA, when compared with the hypothesis that the accused and three unknown individuals were the sources of DNA.  He said that is slight support for the deceased not being a contributor to the DNA profile.[110]

    [110] T1457.1–12.

25. In relation to the swab from the outer surface of the bottle, the sample contained very low amounts of DNA or no DNA.  Therefore, it was not analysed.

    Financial motive to commit the offence

26. The prosecution called evidence that Ms Dent stood to financially benefit in three ways from the death of the deceased.  First, she would no longer have to repay to the deceased money he had spent on her or on mutual assets, such as the motorhome.  On the prosecution case, the deceased had paid for items (or Ms Dent’s share of an item) on the basis that Ms Dent would repay him once her civil claim was finalised.  Upon the deceased’s death, she would no longer be required to do so and would simply retain the asset or benefit of his expenditure.   

27. Second, Ms Dent was named as the beneficiary of the deceased’s superannuation fund in a Binding Death Benefit Nomination form[111] which, as at 24 November 2015, held a balance of approximately $175,462.[112]

    [111] Exhibit P51.

    [112] T958.7–959.14.

28. Third, Ms Dent was the sole executor and beneficiary of a will signed on 25 September 2015.[113]  The will was prepared by her sister, Ms Dianne Dent.   The prosecution contends that shortly prior to the deceased’s death, he was ‘revisiting’ his will and Ms Dent was concerned that she would no longer be the main beneficiary of the will.  The main asset bequeathed to Ms Dent under the will was the (unencumbered and unmortgaged) Premises, valued at approximately $235,000, as at December 2015.[114]

    [113] Exhibit P25.

    [114] Agreed Facts (Exhibit P113) at [2].

29. The prosecution also contends that the deceased’s commitment to his relationship with Ms Dent was cooling and they had passed the ‘honeymoon’ stage.  There was evidence of friction in their relationship, which on the prosecution case supports their contention that Ms Dent had a financial motive to murder the deceased before he ended their relationship.

30. On the defence case, Ms Dent and the deceased were in a happy and loving relationship and they planned to marry.  Defence counsel submits their marriage would subsume any need to repay the monies the deceased spent on Ms Dent, and if she was indeed financially motivated to murder the deceased, realistically she would have waited until after their marriage when she would be in a better position in respect of any claim on the estate.

31. Defence counsel also submits that it is not suggested by the prosecution that the deceased’s will was forged by Ms Dent, or that it did not reflect the deceased’s wishes.  Further, defence counsel submits the evidence does not support a finding that the deceased was revisiting the terms of his will.

32. Defence counsel also submits that Ms Dent’s actions in the days and months following the deceased’s death are inconsistent with a financial motive to commit the offence to benefit from his estate and superannuation fund.  Rather, she was reacting ‘impulsively to the sudden and unexpected passing of her partner’.  Defence counsel submits that Ms Dent displayed a lack of understanding and knowledge of his financial matters which is incongruent with a financial motive to commit the offence.

33. I turn to the evidence in respect of each of the bases upon which the prosecution relies to support Ms Dent’s financial motive to murder the deceased.

    Repayment of money spent on Ms Dent

34. Evidence was led as part of the prosecution case that the deceased spent large amounts of money on Ms Dent with the expectation that at least some of the money would be repaid once her civil claim was finalised.  Ms Dent brought a claim against a former landlord in relation to an injury sustained at a leased property.  The claim was instituted in about October 2014.[115]  As of 3 December 2015, the claim was still on foot.  In September 2015, a solicitor acting for Ms Dent was instructed to submit an offer in the sum of $200,000 plus other costs and disbursements in settlement of the claim.[116]  Ms Dent in early 2016 (after the deceased’s death) agreed to settle the claim for $70,000.[117]

    [115] T989.9–17.

    [116] T992.35–993.2.

    [117] T963.14–28.

35. In December 2014, the deceased purchased Ms Dent a second-hand car for about $6,000.[118] There was evidence that he expected her to repay him the cost of the vehicle from any payout in the personal injury claim.[119]

    [118] Exhibit P104.

    [119] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T337.20–36; Susan Lawrence: T456.20–35; Rodney Lawrence: T534.33–535.5; Jeffrey Read: T629.6–12; Devron Herbert: T749.24–750.7; Phillip Lawrence: T1257.3–11.

36. The deceased paid money to Ms Dent’s brother, Mr Brian Jones.[120] On the prosecution case, this money was assumedly a loan.

    [120] Exhibit P68; T1401.22–32.

37. The deceased also purchased a motorhome for about $90,000. There was evidence from numerous witnesses, including the deceased’s financial adviser, Mr Chad Appleby, that the deceased expected Ms Dent to pay him her share of the cost of the motorhome from her civil claim payout.[121]

    [121] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T338.27–33; Susan Lawrence: T457.5–10; Blake Lawrence: T513.28–514.1; Rodney Lawrence: T534.1–24; Jeffrey Read: T628.15–20; Devron Herbert: T747.7–35; Harley Geissler: T785.35–786.4; Susan Hussey: T881.11–14; Chad Appleby: T954.35–955.18; Phillip Lawrence: T1255.28–34.

38. Some of the deceased’s siblings also gave evidence that the deceased said that he had loaned Ms Dent $6,000 in relation to her legal costs for her civil claim, which he expected her to repay after the claim was finalised.[122]

    [122] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T336.32–337.1, 337.13–8, 395.28–32; Susan Lawrence: T455.27–456.17; Phillip Lawrence: T1256.2–9.

39. Ms Summersides, a forensic accountant, analysed the financial records of Ms Dent and the deceased.[123]  She gave evidence that the deceased made an ‘asset purchase’ of a motorhome for $89,000.  She also identified a payment of $6,000 to Johnston Withers (Ms Dent’s solicitors in her civil claim).  There were also three payments (amounting to a total of $11,000) to the deceased’s brother, Mr Jones; on 31 March 2015 for $5,000, on 24 June 2015 for $5,000, and on 21 July 2015 for $1,000.[124]

    [123] Exhibit P65; Exhibit P66; Exhibit P67; Exhibit P68.

    [124] T1400.6–17, 1401.22–32.

40. Ms Summersides did not identify any monetary transfers directly from any of the deceased’s bank accounts to Ms Dent’s bank accounts.[125]

    [125] T1406.12–6.

41. On 24 November 2015, the deceased and Ms Dent attended a meeting with the deceased’s financial advisor, Mr Appleby of Bridges Financial Services (‘Bridges Finance’).  As of that date, the deceased’s superannuation fund was worth $175,462.  Mr Appleby said that in the previous 12 months there had been withdrawals of about $137,900.  He said Ms Dent was in receipt of the disability support pension and the deceased was receiving a carer’s payment from Centrelink (in relation to Ms Dent).[126]

    [126] T959.12–25.

42. Mr Appleby said that he warned the deceased about ‘longevity risks’ in withdrawing so much money from his superannuation fund within a short period of time and the risk of him outliving his capital.  He said the deceased alluded that he and Ms Dent would replenish his fund once she received her civil claim payout.[127]

    Superannuation fund

    [127] T959.30–8.

43. Mr Appleby gave evidence that the deceased completed a ‘Binding Death Benefit Nomination form’ in respect of his superannuation fund on 14 October 2014. The document is signed by the deceased and witnessed by other employees of Bridges Finance. The nominated beneficiary is Wendie Dent of 7 Godfrey Court, Morphett Vale. The word ‘spouse’ is crossed out and the word ‘partner’ is written above.[128]

    Beneficiary of the deceased’s will

    [128] Exhibit P51; T951.36–952.32.

1. Ms Dent was the sole executor and main beneficiary of a will created and signed on 25 September 2015,[129] about nine weeks prior to the deceased’s death.  The will was prepared by the accused’s sister, Ms Dianne Dent. The deceased’s two previous wills had been prepared by solicitors.[130]  Under the most recent will (Exhibit P25), Ms Dent stood to inherit the Premises.  As at December 2015, the approximate value of the Premises was $235,000.[131]

   Discussions by the deceased about his will before his death

   [129] Exhibit P25.

   [130] Exhibit P97; Exhibit P98. See Agreed Facts (Exhibit P113) at [42].

   [131] Agreed Facts (Exhibit P113) at [2].

2. The deceased had discussions about his will with others in the months preceding his death.  The prosecution accepts that the deceased’s will (Exhibit P25) reflects his testamentary wishes as expressed to others around the date of its creation on 25 September 2015.[132] 

   [132] Evidence of Maxwell Shepherd: T571.2–21, 577.17–22; Susan Hussey: T907.20–908.37; Joseph Campanella: T1015.9–38, 1025.17–1026.13; Audrey Shepherd (Exhibit P102).

3. However, on the prosecution case, in the weeks prior to the deceased’s death, he was again turning his attention to his will, Ms Dent became aware of that fact and she was concerned that the deceased was intending to change his will so she was no longer the main beneficiary.  The prosecution rely on the following pieces of evidence to support this aspect of their case: the deceased spoke with his neighbour, Mr Harley Geissler, as to his contact details for his will; Ms Dent’s conversation with Mr Kym Lawrence on 29 November 2015 about the deceased’s will; and, that the electronic draft of the will was accessed and modified on 1 December 2015.

4. Mr Geissler gave evidence that about two to three weeks prior to the deceased’s death, the deceased asked him for his contact details.  The deceased said that he was going to include him in his will because he had looked after his house and dogs.  Mr Geissler said the deceased wrote down his details and Ms Dent was present for the conversation.  Mr Geissler was shown a copy of the will and asked about paragraph 5(c)(iii), ‘I bequeath the sum of $5,000.00 to my friend and neighbour Harley Griesler for his help, discretion and friendship’.[133]  He agreed that the spelling of his surname as ‘Griesler’ in the will is wrong and that he has never spelt his surname in that way.   He said he had not seen the will before.[134]

   [133] Exhibit P25.

   [134] T778.27–781.2.

5. Mr Kym Lawrence gave evidence that Ms Dent telephoned him on 29 November 2015 using the deceased’s mobile telephone.  He said that during the telephone call, Ms Dent asked him if the deceased had spoken to him about his will. He said he responded that if the deceased had done so it was between them and she should ask the deceased.[135]

   [135] T1176.13–1177.12.

6. The police interrogated the hard drive of a computer seized from Ms Dianne Dent’s home in Dapto on 17 February 2017.  It revealed an electronic document in identical terms to the signed will, except that a reference to the dog ‘Whatt’ had been changed to ‘our family pet’.[136]  It is unclear on the evidence when the dog, Whatt, died.  Metadata of the document showed that it was created on 25 September 2015, which is the same date the seized hardcopy of the will (Exhibit P25) was signed.[137]  It showed that the electronic document was last accessed and modified on 1 December 2015.[138]

   [136] Exhibit P89.

   [137] Exhibit P110 at T2224.18–26.

   [138] Exhibit P110 at T2225.29–34, 2226.24–8.

7. In a previous trial of this matter, in cross-examination, Mr Kerr of the E‑Crime Section of the South Australian Police, conceded that a ‘last access’ date or ‘file modified’ date can be altered without any human interaction with the document, such as by the operation of antivirus software.[139]   

   [139] Exhibit P110 at T2231.24–2233.10.

8. In February 2017, Ms Susan Lawrence located an unsigned draft of the will at the Premises, which was in almost identical terms to the signed will, but it was unsigned by the deceased and pre-witnessed by Ms Dianne Dent and her partner, Mr Gibson.[140]  It also included the reference to ‘our family pet’ in place of the dog, ‘Whatt’.

   [140] Exhibit P40.

   The relationship was faltering

9. The prosecution also contends that Ms Dent’s relationship with the deceased was faltering in the weeks preceding his death, which added to her financial motive to commit the offence of murder.  If the deceased ended their relationship, it meant it would be more likely he would revisit his will and binding death nomination.  She would also be required to repay money to him upon her civil claim being finalised.

10. In support of their contention that their relationship was faltering, the prosecution relies on evidence of some relatively minor incidents in the lead up to the deceased’s death, during which he expressed his annoyance with Ms Dent or appeared exasperated by her.  Those incidents are as follows.

11. First, Dr Phillip Lawrence gave evidence that he had a telephone call with the deceased in September 2015.  The deceased was in Dapto visiting Ms Dent’s family.  He said the deceased said, ‘I’m pissed off, they’ve all gone shopping’ and ‘they’ve left me here to do everything’.  He said the deceased was referring to Ms Dent, Ms Dianne Dent, their mother, and Mr Gibson.[141]

    [141] T1265.16–1266.19, 1270.3–10.

12. Second, Mr Rodney Lawrence gave evidence that the deceased telephoned him from the home of Ms Dent’s mother in September 2015.  He said the deceased told him he was working on a room whilst Ms Dent and her family were out and that ‘it was a good thing, they were worse than useless, no good to him them being there’.[142]  He said that upon the deceased returning to Adelaide in early November, the deceased telephoned him and during their conversation, Ms Dent yelled out from the background.  He said the deceased ‘snapped’, was swearing, and ‘basically degrading his partner’.  He said this was very out of character for him in that it was unusual for him to swear.  He said the deceased said, ‘you fucking bitch’. He did not speak to his brother again after this conversation.[143]

    [142] T536.18–36.

    [143] T538.15–539.36.

13. In cross-examination, Mr Rodney Lawrence agreed that he did not hear what Ms Dent said to provoke his brother.  It was suggested that it was unclear whether it was Ms Dent who had called out.  Mr Rodney Lawrence responded that he knew Ms Dent’s voice and he did not hear anyone else talk while they were on the telephone.  He denied that it could have been Ms Susan Hussey speaking.[144]  I accept Mr Lawrence’s account of this conversation. He was clear in his evidence and relatively precise about the content of the conversation as it had stayed with him because it was out of character for his brother to use such language or speak in such terms.

    [144] T558.36–559.29.

14. Third, Ms Tracy Lawrence said that the deceased appeared a bit annoyed with Ms Dent on an occasion in late November when he brought a post-hole digger to her home because he had to wait for Ms Dent to get dressed.[145]

    [145] T343.32–344.25.

15. Fourth, the prosecution also relies on a greeting card located and seized from the Premises on 3 December 2015 in which Ms Dent wrote, ‘I’m sorry I can’t be all you’d like me to be right now, but my head is on another planet’.[146]

    [146] Exhibit P12.

16. Fifth, evidence that the deceased was suffering from erectile dysfunction in the weeks leading up to his death (as reported by him to Dr Katy Osborne on 25 November 2015).

17. By contrast, there was also evidence from members of the deceased’s family and his friends that he and Ms Dent were happy together in the months and weeks leading up to his death.  There was evidence that they were affectionate to each other and that Ms Dent had brought some joy to the deceased’s life.[147] Indeed, Mr Maxwell Shepherd said that on the occasions he saw Ms Dent and the deceased together it appeared that the deceased was in love, although he was not sure about Ms Dent.[148]  Mr Jeffrey Read (the deceased’s stepson) also said that the deceased told him that he had fallen in love with Wendie.[149]  But this conversation appears to have taken place many months prior to the deceased’s death.  

    [147] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T374.28–30, 390.29–34; Maxwell Shepherd: T576.9–12; Devron Herbert: T763.29–34; Harley Geissler: T792.12–6; Brittney Bates: T817.11–4, 818.18–9; Susan Hussey: T902.14–6, 908.38–909.2; Chad Appleby: T973.27–30; Kym Lawrence: T1196.15–21; Deborah Lawrence: T1243.8–11.

    [148] T574.27–30.

    [149] T625.18–9.

18. It is difficult to make any definitive finding as to the state of their relationship in the weeks leading up to the deceased’s death.  Ms Dent and the deceased lived alone and they did not appear to spend large amounts of time with any persons in late 2015 who could shed any real light on the state of their relationship at the time.  The evidence was to the effect that Ms Dent and the deceased appeared generally happy and content in their relationship, albeit with some moments of frustration or displeasure expressed by the deceased.  These moments appear to be relatively minor in the context of a de facto relationship of almost 18 months. I am satisfied however, that there was some tension in their relationship in the months leading up to the deceased’s death.

    Post death comments made by Ms Dent about the will

19. The prosecution also relies on evidence that Ms Dent raised the issue of the deceased’s will with his family very shortly after his death.  The alacrity with which Ms Dent raised his will with his family (when considered in conjunction with the evidence of the deceased revisiting his will in the weeks prior to his death and her knowledge of that fact) is relevant on the prosecution case to underscore Ms Dent’s financial motive to commit the offence.  This evidence was largely adduced from the deceased’s siblings.

20. Ms Tracy Lawrence said that on the morning of 3 December 2015 at about 10am, after the police and ambulance officers had left the Premises, Ms Dent mentioned on a few occasions that the deceased had left everything to her in his will, and if any member of the Lawrence family entered the property, they were not to take anything.  Ms Tracy Lawrence said that Ms Dent’s tone when making these comments was not pleasant.  She said Ms Dent told her that if any Lawrence sibling contested the will, they would only receive $25 each.  Ms Tracy Lawrence said that her brother, Mr Rodney Lawrence, was present at the time of that conversation.[150] However, Mr Rodney Lawrence could not recall any discussion about the will on 3 December.[151]

    [150] T357.30–359.17.

    [151] T543.17–9.

21. Ms Marina D’Antonio of Bridges Finance also spoke with Ms Dent on 3 December 2015.  She said she was not sure of the timing of the conversation, except to say that it would have taken place during her working hours, which were 8:30am to 5pm.  She said Ms Dent advised her that the deceased had died in his sleep on the night of 2 December 2015.  She said Ms Dent said that the deceased updated his will and that the house deed is in her name.  She said Ms Dent said that she would need to pay for his funeral, and she was not sure where to obtain the money from to do so.  She asked if she could take the money from the deceased’s superannuation fund.  Ms D’Antonio said that she would make inquiries.[152]

    [152] T978.23–979.17.

22. Ms D’Antonio contacted Ms Dent the following day to advise her that they did not have a ‘third-party authority’ for information or transactions on the deceased’s behalf, therefore they were not able to discuss his account.[153]

    [153] T981.14–23.

23. On 4 December 2015, several members of the Lawrence family attended the Premises.  During their attendance, Ms Dent produced the will and some handwritten notes from her handbag,[154] which she said the deceased had dictated.[155]  Ms Dent handed the documents to Mr Kym Lawrence and said: ‘You’re the executor.’[156]

    [154] Exhibit P25; Exhibit P26; Exhibit P27.

    [155] T365.8–367.6.

    [156] Evidence of Kym Lawrence: T1205.34–6; Phillip Lawrence: T1275.14–7.

24. Dr Phillip Lawrence then asked if he could take the will and documents to assist him with the funeral arrangements and Ms Dent agreed to him doing so.[157]

    [157] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T370.35–7; Phillip Lawrence: T1279.22–5, T1301.23–32.

25. Upon a closer inspection of the will, members of the Lawrence family noted spelling mistakes.  In paragraph 5 of the will there are the words ‘[t]o my siblings Phillip Wayne Lawrence, Suzanne Meryl Lawrence’.  However, Ms Susan Lawrence spells her name ‘Susan’ and her second name is ‘Merle’.[158] There is also a reference to ‘Tracey Ann Lawrence’, yet Ms Tracy Lawrence spells her name ‘Tracy’, with no ‘E’.[159] 

    [158] T464.31–3.

    [159] T368.32–3.

26. Dr Phillip Lawrence also noticed that the will was not prepared by a lawyer, which he considered out of character with the way the deceased conducted his affairs.[160]  He also considered the deceased leaving $10,000 to Ms Dent’s dog to be out of character.[161]  Dr Phillip Lawrence and Ms Tracy Lawrence both gave evidence that after Ms Dent produced the will on 4 December 2015, these concerns were raised amongst family members and they discussed contesting the will.[162]

    [160] T1279.7–12.

    [161] T1280.10–1.

    [162] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T423.3–8; Phillip Lawrence: T1279.35–1280.16.

27. Ms Tracy Lawrence gave evidence that on 5 December 2015, Ms Dent contacted her and said that her sister was angry and upset at her for allowing Dr Phillip Lawrence to come into the house and take the will.  Ms Dent requested that they return the will.  Ms Tracy Lawrence said she was trying to calm her down and at this stage she was trying to be supportive of her.  She said that within half an hour of that conversation she went to the Premises to see Ms Dent.  When she arrived, Ms Dent was on the phone to her sister, Ms Dianne Dent.  Ms Tracy Lawrence spoke to Ms Dianne Dent and agreed to return the will.  She said Dr Phillip Lawrence and Mr Kym Lawrence attended the Premises about 15 minutes later and brought back the will and associated notes.[163]

    [163] T371.20–373.9.

28. Dr Phillip Lawrence gave evidence that when he returned to the Premises on 5 December 2015, Ms Dent said ‘I know you’re concerned about the will’, ‘I’m sure we can come to some sort of agreement’, and ‘if you want anything just ask for it, it’s yours’.  He replied: ‘I don’t think that’s appropriate before the legal processes of looking at the will … that we should be doing anything to come up with any deal.’  He said later that day he questioned Ms Dent specifically about the will.  He said: ‘I think the will is not written in a style that David would write.’   He thought he made a flippant comment, ‘it seems to be like an idiot has written this will’.  He said Ms Dent replied ‘are you suggesting a fuckwit?’, and he said ‘well yeah, probably a fuckwit has written the will’.  Then Ms Dent said, ‘are you calling my sister a fuckwit[?]’, and he said, ‘I didn’t realise your sister had written the will’.[164]

    [164] T1285.1–1286.13.

29. On 6 December 2015, members of the Lawrence family said they went to the Premises to discuss funeral arrangements with Ms Dent and to retrieve the deceased’s mobile phone so as to contact his friends and associates who were not yet aware that he had died.[165]   By this stage, Ms Dianne Dent and her partner were present at the Premises, as was Mr Joseph Campanella.  Members of the Lawrence family said they were not allowed to enter the house and that Ms Dianne Dent said she was calling the police.[166]  They then went to the police station to arrange a ‘breach of peace order’ and then returned to the property and waited for the police to attend.[167]  The police subsequently arrived and asked them to leave, which they did.[168]

    [165] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T431.5–14; Phillip Lawrence: T1288.26–1289.5, 1333.8–1334.5.

    [166] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T431.15–8; Phillip Lawrence: T1289.29–1290.21.

    [167] T1290.23–1291.3.

    [168] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T431.28–30; Kym Lawrence: T1208.13–17; Phillip Lawrence: T1335.20–1336.11.

30. On 7 December 2015, Ms Dent contacted Bridges Finance and spoke with Ms D’Antonio.  During the conversation, Ms D’Antonio reiterated to Ms Dent that there is no third-party authority on the deceased’s account, and they are therefore unable to talk to Ms Dent or any other family member about the superannuation fund.  Ms D’Antonio said that Ms Dent told her that the deceased’s family snatched the will from her and they had not given it back to her, that they are harassing her to the point that the police have become involved, and that they are trying to kick her out of house and obtain possession of the motorhome.  Ms D’Antonio said that Ms Dent told her that the deceased’s family are trying to get her to sign some paperwork and the deceased’s friends have told her not to sign anything.  She asked Ms Dent who was the executor of the will and she replied that it was her. She said she told Ms Dent to take all the information to her lawyer and they will guide her in the right direction.[169]

    [169] T979.31–980.29.

31. On the same day, Mr Blake Lawrence (the deceased’s nephew) contacted Bridges Finance to notify them that the deceased had died and of their concerns about the deceased’s estate and Ms Dent.  He said that he was advised that Bridges Finance could not discuss the matter because of privacy laws.[170]  Ms D’Antonio said that during this conversation, Mr Blake Lawrence said the Lawrence family are taking legal action against Ms Dent who is the executor of the will.[171]

    [170] T515.3–23.

    [171] T982.4–25.

32. There was also evidence that around this time, members of the Lawrence family agreed to instruct a solicitor in relation to the will because they believed it did not reflect the true wishes of their brother.[172]

    [172] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T423.9–34, 427.12–8; Kym Lawrence: T1206.30–1207.1; Deborah Lawrence: T1243.21–1244.16; Phillip Lawrence: T1287.17–1288.10.

    Other post death conduct by Ms Dent in relation to the will

33. The prosecution also relies on other alleged conduct by Ms Dent in the days and weeks following the deceased’s death in establishing she had a financial motive to commit the offence.  That evidence falls into two main categories: first, overtures to neighbours to provide statutory declarations as to their relationship; and second, lies told by Ms Dent (in the form of written forgeries and notes).

    Statutory declarations

34. Mr Martin Dalton (the deceased’s neighbour) said that two or three days after the deceased’s death, he saw Ms Dent.  He said she came to his house and asked him to complete a statutory declaration to say that she and the deceased were living as de facto partners prior to his death.  He said his wife was initially present but left.  Mr Dalton said that Ms Dent offered him the deceased’s boat in exchange for completing the statutory declaration.  Ms Dent said that she would not need the boat because she was the executor and main beneficiary of the will.  Mr Dalton said that he told her that he did not need the boat.  He said Ms Dent then said, ‘well you can have all his tools. I won’t need them, I don’t even know how to use them’.   He said, ‘I don’t want them’.  Mr Dalton told Ms Dent that he would think about completing the statutory declaration. However, he never did complete it and he did not speak to her again.[173]

    [173] T590.18–592.6.

35. In cross-examination, Mr Dalton agreed that he reported this conversation to Dr Phillip Lawrence a day or so later.  Mr Dalton agreed that he provided a statutory declaration to assist the Lawrence family in the estate proceedings.[174]

    [174] T608.14–36.

36. Mr Geissler also gave evidence that Ms Dent gave him the Suzuki vehicle they bought with the motorhome.  She said that it was a Christmas present that the deceased was going to give him so she thought she would still give it to him.  Mr Geissler gave evidence that about a month after the deceased’s death, Ms Dent told him that once everything was over and done with, he could also have the boat and the tools.[175]

    [175] T782.8–23.

1. In accepting Mr Kym Lawrence’s evidence on this topic, I have not overlooked that there was no warmth between Mr Kym Lawrence and Ms Dent before the deceased’s death.  There was also clear animosity between them after his death.  More broadly, the deceased’s siblings (who were close to each other) clearly blamed Ms Dent for his death almost immediately after she reported it.  They were open and transparent in their animus towards Ms Dent.  They maintained close contact with the Coroner’s office and the police throughout the investigation and took an active interest in it.  However, notwithstanding those matters, I consider Mr Kym Lawrence presented as a straightforward witness who gave his evidence in a blunt and unvarnished manner without embellishment.  I consider him to be truthful and accurate in his evidence that Ms Dent raised the topic of whether the deceased had spoken to him about his will on 29 November 2015, a few days before the deceased’s death.    

2. It is also of some significance that the electronic version of the deceased’s will had been accessed and modified on 1 December 2015.  Whilst there is no direct evidence that a person accessed the document at the instruction of Ms Dent, with Mr Kerr conceding the possibility that the document was accessed without human interaction (for example by virus software),[527] I consider it an unlikely coincidence that the electronic document of the will was accessed only two days after Ms Dent was making inquiries of Mr Kym Lawrence as to whether the deceased had discussed his will, and a day or so before his death.  I consider that Ms Dent instructed her sister to access the will on 1 December 2015, again highlighting her interest in the deceased’s financial affairs.

   [527] T2232.22–2233.4 (Exhibit P110).

3. The strength of Ms Dent’s financial motive to commit the offence is also revealed by her conduct immediately after the deceased’s death.  I am satisfied that on the morning of his death she spoke about the will to Ms Tracy Lawrence and told her that the deceased had left everything to her in his will, and if any member of the Lawrence family entered the property, they were not to take anything. Although Ms Tracy Lawrence said that her brother, Mr Rodney Lawrence, was present at the time,[528] he does not recall that conversation.[529]  I am satisfied that Ms Tracy Lawrence was simply mistaken as to her brother’s presence at the time of the conversation.

   [528] T357.25–359.6.

   [529] T560.33–561.9.

4. Later that day, on 3 December 2015, Ms Dent contacted Bridges Finance and expressed her wish to access the deceased’s superannuation fund (to pay for funeral expenses).[530]

   [530] T979.11–3.

5. The following day, on 4 December 2015, Ms Dent produced the will (and notes used to compile the will) to other members of the Lawrence family.[531] On 5 December 2015, she also tried to negotiate a financial agreement with Dr Phillip Lawrence (without the need for legal proceedings or scrutiny of the will).[532]

   [531] Exhibit P26; Exhibit P27; Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T366.7–17; Kym Lawrence: T1182.12–1183.33; Phillip Lawrence: T1276.17–1277.25.

   [532] T1285.1–10.

6. I am satisfied that Ms Dent’s conduct in raising the will, particularly with members of the Lawrence family, such a short time after the deceased’s death, her trying to negotiate an agreement in respect of the will, and her efforts in attempting to immediately access his superannuation fund underscores her financial motive to commit the offence.

7. I have had regard to defence counsel’s arguments that in raising such financial matters immediately after the deceased’s death, Ms Dent was simply concerned about having a place to live and organising to pay for his funeral expenses.  I have also considered the argument that she did not have a keen understanding of the deceased’s financial affairs, as revealed by her erroneous comments on 4 December to the Lawrence siblings that Mr Kym Lawrence was the executor of the will.[533]  I note that by 7 December she understood she was the executor of his will because she advised Ms D’Antonio of that fact.[534]  I have considered the defence submissions that her conduct is inconsistent with a premeditated financial motive to commit the offence.

   [533] Evidence of Kym Lawrence: T1205.34–6; Phillip Lawrence: T1275.14–7.

   [534] T980.26–7.

8. I do not agree.

9. Ms Dent’s conduct and interest in the deceased’s will in the days leading up to his death, and immediately after his death, must be looked at as a continuum.  It showed a keen interest in his will in the days leading up to his death which continued almost unbroken in the day or so after his death, before the Lawrence family overtly took issue with the will.  She stood to benefit significantly from the deceased’s death.  In those circumstances, I am satisfied Ms Dent had a financial motive to murder the deceased.

10. I reiterate that I have not taken into account Ms Dent’s overtures to Mr Dalton and Mr Geissler to provide statutory declarations as to her relationship status with the deceased.  Nor have I taken into account her forgeries on the deceased’s artwork and in notes and letters as to the deceased’s purported wishes in relation to his estate and his purported animosity towards his siblings.  As discussed earlier, that evidence is equally consistent with having been written by Ms Dent after the Lawrence family had instituted legal proceedings in relation to the deceased’s estate to sure up her claim.

11. I am also satisfied that Ms Dent made efforts to isolate the deceased from his friends and family in the days preceding his death to provide her with the opportunity to commit the offence.  There is no doubt that the deceased suffered from some level of back pain in the week preceding his death.  However, he did not require complete bed rest.  Indeed, he was medically advised to the contrary.[535]  There was no medical reason or any other apparent reason for Ms Dent to ask his family and friends to not visit or contact him during the days preceding his death.  Nor was there any medical reason or any other apparent reason for Ms Dent to take control of his telephone and not return his phone calls.

    [535] T261.27–32.

12. In reaching that finding, I rely on the following matters.

13. First, the evidence of the deceased’s family and associates who saw him performing manual tasks in mid to late November 2015 without difficulty or complaint.  Ms Tracy Lawrence observed the deceased load pieces of wood onto a wheelbarrow and then into a trailer.  She did not notice him experiencing any pain or difficulty. [536]  Mr Max Lawrence saw the deceased about two weeks before his death carrying five heavy bags of horse manure and six or seven milk cartons of wood off-cuts. He said there did not seem to be anything wrong with the deceased’s back.[537]  Later in November 2015, Ms Tracy Lawrence saw the deceased using a post-hole digger without exhibiting or expressing any feelings of pain.[538]  On 24 November 2015, the deceased asked Mr Dalton if he required help with building work at his home without mentioning that he was suffering from any health or back problems.[539]

    [536] T340.9–341.35.

    [537] Exhibit P103.

    [538] T344.33–345.12.

    [539] T588.1–28.

14. Second, the evidence of two medical practitioners, Dr Osborne and Dr Giamos. During his consultation with Dr Osborne on Wednesday, 25 November 2015, the deceased described his level of back pain as low when completing physical activities and absent at rest.  At that stage, he had not taken any medication for pain relief.  Dr Osborne said that she advised him to remain active and avoid bed rest but to not do excessive activity.[540]  I am satisfied that had the deceased been experiencing severe back pain at this time, he would have said so, and had he been exhibiting any signs of severe back pain, Dr Osborne would have noted them.  

    [540] T261.13–32.

15. In the days which followed his appointment with Dr Osborne, the deceased told others that his back was still causing him pain.  He told Mr Walsh that the back pain was ‘still there but better can move now’.[541]  He also complained of back pain to Mr Campanella.[542]

    [541] Exhibit P50 at 1; Exhibit P50A at 4.

    [542] T1006.37–1008.6.

16. However, during the deceased’s consultation with Dr Giamos on Sunday, 29 November 2015, he told her that he required stronger pain relief, but he did not say that his back pain had worsened.  Dr Giamos described him as exhibiting no apparent distress or pain and walking normally.  She said that in her opinion the deceased was suffering from a reasonably mild musculoskeletal problem.  She prescribed him 20 Panadeine Forte tablets (with no repeats) and instructed him to take one to two tablets every four hours if required, with a maximum of eight tablets in any 24-hour period.[543]

    [543] T287.30–290.4.

17. On the basis of the medical evidence and the observations of the deceased’s friends and family, I am satisfied that as at 29 November 2015, the deceased was suffering from mild back pain for which he had been prescribed medication (naproxen and later, Panadeine Forte) and advised against complete bed rest.  There was no legitimate medical reason for him to be confined to bed rest.

18. I am satisfied that Ms Dent made efforts to dissuade the deceased’s friends and family from seeing and speaking with him in the days preceding his death.  She attempted to isolate the deceased in the following ways. First, by taking his mobile telephone so that he could not answer or return any phone calls.  She also did not return any calls on his behalf.  Second, by telling his family and friends not to call or visit the deceased.  Third, by not allowing Ms Fisher who attended the Premises, by prior arrangement with the deceased, to see him. 

19. In relation to taking the deceased’s mobile telephone away from him, I consider Ms Dent’s explanation (as provided to Mr Campanella) that she did so as every time the deceased tried to turn over to answer his phone he was in ‘massive pain’ is implausible.[544]  I do not accept he was in massive pain (on the basis of the medical evidence discussed earlier).  Further, and in any event, that did not preclude Ms Dent from returning phone calls on his behalf.  Mr Walsh made numerous efforts to speak with the deceased.  During the latter calls and text messages he made it clear that he was very worried about him.  He implored him to return his calls and text messages.  Mr Walsh had also planned a birthday celebration for him on 1 December, yet there was no response in relation his inquiries about the dinner and no effort to cancel or postpone it.[545]  Mr Herbert left a message that his father had died (with whom the deceased was close), yet that text message too went unanswered and was not returned.[546]

    [544] T1029.9–17.

    [545] Exhibit P50; Exhibit P50A; T934.21–936.11.

    [546] T756.6–16.

20. Ms Dent also asked Ms Tracy Lawrence and Mr Kym Lawrence to not call or contact the deceased.[547]  Ms Tracy Lawrence was a nurse.  She lived close by.  If the deceased’s condition had genuinely deteriorated to the extent that he was in severe pain, it is implausible that Ms Dent would not have contacted his sister at the very least, let alone seek medical assistance.

    [547] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T345.28–346.27; Kym Lawrence: T1178.16–8.

21. For these reasons, I am satisfied that Ms Dent made efforts to isolate the deceased from his friends and family from Sunday, 29 November 2015.  There was no medical reason or any other apparent reason to do so, particularly in circumstances where his birthday fell during this time.  I am satisfied that Ms Dent made efforts to isolate the deceased to provide her with the opportunity to administer to him the fatal dose or fatal doses of her prescription drugs which caused his death.

22. I am also satisfied that Ms Dent’s conduct on the morning of 3 December 2015, in contacting her bank’s telephone banking service before an ambulance, is inconsistent with unexpectedly having found her partner dead. I have considered, as an explanation for Ms Dent not immediately calling emergency services, that she may have been shocked and distressed at seeing her partner dead. However, notwithstanding such an explanation, I consider her conduct in calling her bank account 55 minutes before calling emergency services is inconsistent with having unexpectedly found her partner dead.

23. As to the question of whether the prosecution has proved that Ms Dent administered the drugs which caused the deceased’s death, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did so.  I rely on my findings that Ms Dent had a financial motive to commit the offence and that she isolated the deceased to provide her with an opportunity to administer the fatal dose or fatal doses of the drugs which caused his death.

24. Further, over the preceding year, Ms Dent had been prescribed and dispensed a large amount of the prescription drugs (including morphine and tramadol) which, I am satisfied, caused the deceased’s death.  Assuming Ms Dent took the prescribed amount of morphine and tramadol tablets, there are more than 100 tablets of each drug missing.[548]  Even if Ms Dent consumed more than the prescribed amount (which Professor White described as a level of prescription usually reserved for those in palliative care), there were still many tablets which were unaccounted for.  It is plain Ms Dent had ready access to the drugs which caused the deceased’s death.

    [548] Exhibit P90.

25. Defence counsel submits that the evidence excludes a finding that the fatal concoction of drugs was administered to the deceased in a single dose.  This in turn makes it less likely that Ms Dent administered the drugs as the deceased is less likely to have unknowingly consumed the drugs, or agreed to consume the drugs, in multiple doses given they would have had a bitter taste and he probably would have been experiencing nausea as an opioid naive person.

26. In making that submission, defence counsel relies on the following evidence. First, Professor White allowed for the possibility that the tumbler had been used on different occasions over several days, whereby the traces of different drugs could have accumulated in the liquid in the tumbler. This is assuming that the tumbler had not been cleaned.[549]  Second, he also said that had all the drugs which caused the deceased’s death been dissolved into a tumbler of water and administered in a single dose, they would not have completely dissolved and he would have expected sediment to remain in the tumbler (of which there was none).[550]  Third, Ms Lindsay also conceded that the metabolite of tramadol could have been present in the liquid in the tumbler, but in a quantity less than the level for detection.[551]  This would be consistent with the drugs having been consumed earlier and having been absorbed by the deceased.

    [549] T1142.26–35.

    [550] T1146.9–18.

    [551] T1161.7–22.

27. Notwithstanding defence counsel’s arguments, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Dent administered the prescription drugs to the deceased.  I am satisfied that she administered the drugs that caused the deceased’s death in either a single dose or more than one dose.  I am satisfied that the toxicology evidence allows for both scenarios.  Dr Langlois could not say how long before his death the deceased had consumed the drugs.[552]  Professor White said there was nothing that points either to the fatal dose being given in a single dose or in multiple doses over a period of time.[553]

    [552] T1100.1–4.

    [553] T1126.10–2.

28. As to the fact there is only a small amount of liquid and no sediment in the tumbler, that is explained by the fatal dose of drugs being crushed into the tumbler and being administered by Ms Dent to the deceased and then the tumbler having been cleaned or washed out (so that the sediment is removed).  The tumbler is then used again by the deceased within 10 minutes or so to consume a juice drink (without drugs) so that his saliva (containing the drugs which he had earlier consumed) is washed back into the remaining liquid in the glass.  In this way, there is limited sediment and limited liquid in the tumbler.  There would be no metabolites detected in the liquid because the drug is yet to be processed within the body.  I am satisfied Ms Dent undertook that process either once or more than once in administering a fatal dose or fatal doses to the deceased causing his death.

29. The fact that there may be metabolites in the liquid which are undetected does not undermine the prosecution case in this regard.  It simply means that there is a greater period of time between the deceased consuming the fatal dose or last fatal dose of the drugs and consuming the liquid (with no drugs) after the tumbler has been cleaned.  If the deceased had consumed liquid (with no drugs) from the tumbler within several hours (rather than minutes) of having consumed the fatal dose or last fatal dose of the drugs and his saliva is deposited into the liquid in the tumbler, the metabolites of the drugs would be present in the liquid.  This is because a couple of hours have elapsed (between the drugs being administered and the deceased drinking from the tumbler) and the deceased’s body has absorbed and processed the drugs so the metabolites of the drugs would be present in the deceased’s saliva which is then deposited in the liquid in the tumbler.

30. As discussed earlier, the pharmacological evidence suggests that the diazepam was consumed at least several hours before his death.[554]  The nitrazepam was consumed up to several days preceding his death.[555]  I am satisfied that Ms Dent administered these drugs separately to the deceased in the days and hours before administering the fatal dose or fatal doses of the opioid drugs which caused his death.  The drugs would have had a sedative effect upon him which would have made him more vulnerable to taking the fatal dose or fatal doses of the opioid drugs.  

    [554] T1132.14–20.

    [555] T1133.1–6.

31. I make that finding on the basis of Ms Dent’s admissions to Senior Constable Cain on 3 December 2015 that she had given the deceased valium (diazepam) on two occasions (although she tried to resile from that admission in her record of interview).[556]  She also admitted to Ms Tracy Lawrence on 29 November 2015 that she had given the deceased 10 mg of valium.[557]  Further, she admitted to Dr Osborne on 3 December 2015 that had given the deceased Antenex (a brand name of diazepam).[558] Ms Dent was prescribed diazepam and nitrazepam and had ready access to those drugs.

    [556] T217.5–11.

    [557] T348.1–9.

    [558] T269.16–24.

32. As to the defence submission that the deceased would have been unlikely to have knowingly taken more than one dose of the opioid drugs because of their bitter taste, it must be borne in mind that he would have been in a sedated state because of the effects of the diazepam and nitrazepam.  He would also be vulnerable to Ms Dent due to his relationship with her, the fact he was isolated from his friends and family, and given her professed experience as a nurse.  

33. I exclude as a reasonable possibility that the deceased intentionally administered the drugs which caused his death to himself for pain relief, or that both he and Ms Dent separately administered the drugs for pain relief (which together caused his death) in quantities that were of themselves safe, but in combination, were fatal.

34. I make that finding for the following reasons.

35. I am satisfied that the deceased was not suffering from severe back pain.  He had been prescribed Panadeine Forte.  Even if he had used the complete packet of Panadeine Forte prescribed by Dr Giamos on 29 November 2015, there was nothing to prevent him from returning to the doctor.

36. There was also evidence from members of the deceased’s family that they had made observations of his habitual reluctance to take pain medication.[559]  Ms Dent also said in conversations with others (recorded in the telephone intercepts or recorded by listening devices) that, to her knowledge, the deceased had not taken anything stronger than a Nurofen in the time she had known him.[560]  In her record of interview, Ms Dent also said that she ‘could not really see him taking her morphine’.[561]

    [559] Evidence of Tracy Lawrence: T373.37–374.7; Susan Lawrence: T460.37–461.7; Jeffrey Read: T629.32–630.5; Phillip Lawrence: T1294.10–21.

    [560] Call number 9 Exhibit P57; Exhibit P57A.

    [561] Exhibit P58; Exhibit P58A at 46.1544.

1. There was a complete absence of the deceased’s DNA extracted from the morphine packaging (Exhibit P16) examined at the FSC. Whilst I accept there are reasons why a person may not shed DNA, or a person’s DNA may not be deposited on an item, the complete absence of any of the deceased’s DNA on the medication examined is a piece of circumstantial evidence which supports the prosecution case that they have excluded as a reasonable possibility that he self‑administered the drugs. 

2. As to any suggestion that the deceased intentionally administered the fatal concoction of drugs to himself to commit suicide, I reject it as a reasonable possibility. The deceased was described as having good mental health (except by Ms Fisher who described him as sounding very depressed a couple of weeks before his death[562]).[563]  He was not suffering from any terminal illness nor did he have any significant medical health problems. There is no basis at all to consider it a reasonable possibility that he administered the drugs to himself intentionally to end his life.

   [562] T867.13–5.

   [563] See, eg, Evidence of Katy Osborne: T257.24–5; Tracy Lawrence: T374.24–7; Susan Lawrence: T491.11–4; Rodney Lawrence: T535.31–6; Jeffrey Read: T629.19–31, 630.25–7; Kym Lawrence: T1196.7–16; Deborah Lawrence: T1121.13–9.

3. As to the submission that the deceased unintentionally administered the fatal dose or fatal doses of the prescription drugs to himself for pain relief, I reject that as a reasonable possibility.  There was a very high concentration of both morphine and tramadol in his blood.  He was a man who was observed to display a habitual reluctance to take medication. If the fatal dose was taken as a single dose, the deceased would need to have consumed about 20 100 mg tablets of morphine (uncrushed) and four 200 mg tablets of tramadol.[564]  If his death was caused by multiple doses of morphine over three days, the deceased would need to have consumed about 20 100 mg tablets of morphine (uncrushed) and four 200 mg tablets of tramadol per day to reach the level of concentration of the morphine and tramadol measured in his blood at the time of his death.  I consider it implausible that he would have unintentionally consumed that number of tablets of opioid drugs.

   [564] T1123.6–1124.5, 1129.18–30.

4. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Dent administered the drugs to the deceased which caused his death with an intention to kill him.  I am satisfied of her specific intention to kill the deceased on the basis of my finding that she had a financial motive to commit the offence because she would benefit significantly from his death and my finding that in the days preceding his death she was concerned that he was revisiting his will.  I exclude as a reasonable possibility that Ms Dent administered the drugs to the deceased without the requisite intention to commit the offence but rather, to relieve his back pain.

5. I do so for the following reasons.

6. Ms Dent had been prescribed morphine and tramadol for many years. The concentration of each opioid drug detected in the deceased’s blood (considered collectively in combination with the other drugs detected in his blood) was so high that this fact alone excludes the possibility that Ms Dent administered the drugs to the deceased for pain relief and not with an intention to kill him.  

7. In concluding that Ms Dent administered the fatal dose or fatal doses of drugs with an intention to kill the deceased, I have not overlooked that Ms Dent was prescribed particularly high levels of morphine and tramadol and that she offered her prescription drugs to others for pain relief.[565] However, those matters must be considered in the context of the very high concentration of opioid drugs detected in the deceased’s blood and the number of morphine tablets and tramadol tablets it would take to reach that level of concentration.

   [565] Evidence of Jeffrey Read: T627.1–19; Susan Hussey: T882.12–883.27; Deborah Lawrence: T1219.8–26.

8. In reaching the conclusion that Ms Dent intentionally administered the drugs to the deceased which caused his death, with an intention to kill, I reject her exculpatory explanations in her record of interview and in conversations with others (for the reasons set out earlier).  I reject Ms Dent’s denials in her record of interview and to others of having committed the offence of murder.  I am satisfied that the prosecution has excluded any reasonable explanation consistent with her innocence.

9. Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Dent deliberately and voluntarily administered a fatal dose or fatal doses of morphine and tramadol to the deceased; that this act or acts caused the death of the deceased; that her act or acts causing the deceased’s death were without any lawful excuse or justification; and that at the time she administered the drugs causing the deceased’s death, she had a specific intention to kill him.

10. I find Ms Dent guilty of murder.