R v Dilosa - [2023] NSWSC 1515

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dilosa [2023] NSWSC 1515
Hearing dates: 04 December 2023
Date of orders: 04 December 2023
Decision date: 04 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sweeney J
Decision:
1. Convicted.
2. Sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years imprisonment to date from 19 September 2019 with an additional term of 2 years imprisonment.
3. The head sentence is one of 6 years imprisonment.
4. The offender was eligible for release on parole as of 18 September 2023.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Accessory after the fact to murder — Plea of guilty at trial

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Kaminic v R [2014] NSWCCA 116
R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254
R v Postlewaight [2010] NSWSC 1272

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Justin Dilosa (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Stanhope (Crown)
A Webb (offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Adrian Kiely Legal (offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00293729
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 28 June 2023, the Crown presented an indictment against Justin Kent Dilosa charging him with murdering Danielle Easey and, in the alternative, with being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Danielle Easey by Carol McHenry. Mr Dilosa pleaded guilty to the alternative charge but not guilty to the murder charge. His trial proceeded on the murder charge. The jury found him not guilty of that charge.
He now comes to be sentenced for the offence of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Ms Easey by Carol McHenry, by having assisted Carol McHenry, knowing that she had murdered Danielle Easey.
The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years imprisonment. Although Mr Dilosa pleaded guilty to the offence for sentence, the parties did not rely on agreed facts. Therefore I make the following findings of fact from the evidence in the trial.
On the morning of 16 August 2019 Justin Dilosa met Danielle Easey for the first time. She went to his home in Cardiff with Carol McHenry. She was a friend of Carol McHenry. Carol McHenry and Mr Dilosa had been in a relationship in 2018 and remained friends. The evidence in the trial showed that Ms McHenry depended on Mr Dilosa for emotional and practical support but also that she could demand that he do things to assist her.
On the morning of 16 August, Ms McHenry and Ms Easey left Mr Dilosa's place to go to Ms McHenry's place. Ms McHenry called Mr Dilosa angry or upset that she had found Ms Easey to be in possession of some property or documents relating to her children and partner. Ms McHenry asked Mr Dilosa to come to her home and he did so. The evidence showed that Ms Easey and Ms McHenry and Mr Dilosa occupied much of their time that day gambling on poker machines and trying to obtain methylamphetamine, which they used at that time.
On 17 August, Ms McHenry, Ms…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading R v Dilosa

Details

AGLC: R v Dilosa [2023] NSWSC 1515
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1515
Decision Date: 04 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dilosa was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Dilosa, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of a named individual. The facts of the case centred around Dilosa's role in assisting the primary perpetrator of the murder after the crime had been committed, which included providing a place of refuge and helping to dispose of evidence. The prosecution sought a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence and the defendant's level of involvement.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with determining an appropriate sentence for an accessory after the fact, and the extent to which the plea of guilty should mitigate the sentence. The court had to balance the principle of justice with the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which include the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as the defendant's remorse and culpability. The defence argued for a lenient sentence based on the defendant's early guilty plea and the extent of their involvement compared to the primary perpetrator.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's role in facilitating the crime. However, it also took into account the defendant's early guilty plea, which demonstrated a degree of remorse and cooperation with the authorities. The court found that while the offence was heinous, the defendant's level of involvement was secondary to that of the primary perpetrator. The judge ultimately sentenced Dilosa to a term of imprisonment, taking into consideration both the need for punishment and the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court emphasised the importance of accountability for those who assist in the aftermath of serious crimes, while also acknowledging the nuances of the defendant's role.

Orders