Legal Research
Cases
R v Dufty; R v Tisdell

R v Dufty; R v Tisdell

Case [2020] NSWSC 1920 30 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dufty; R v Tisdell [2020] NSWSC 1920
Hearing dates: 14, 15 and 16 December 2020
Date of orders: 30 December 2020
Decision date: 30 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
The offender Darcy Dufty is sentenced to imprisonment for 17 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 12 years.
The offender Andrue Maxwell Tisdell is sentenced to imprisonment for 17 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME — sentencing — murder — following pleas of guilty — where some facts of the offending are disputed — where disputed facts rest on the evidence of one witness — consideration of Murray direction — where reliability issues of witness — objective seriousness of offending — use of L-bar inflicting blunt force injuries — body dumped in forest — where offenders mutilated body — subjective factors — consideration of Bugmy principles — where finding made as to special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165

Cases Cited:
Barbieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 295
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Burton [2020] NSWCCA 54
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim R 126
Leach v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 3
Ohanian v R [2017] NSWCCA 268
R v Alcazar [2017] NSWCCA 51
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315
Smale v R [2007] NSWCCA 328
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Proceedings 2019/144528
Regina
Darcy Dufty (Offender)
Proceedings 2019/144531
Regina
Andrue Maxwell Tisdell (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Proceedings 2019/144528
L Carr SC (Crown)
B Bickford (Dufty)

Proceedings 2019/144531
L Carr SC (Crown)
M Swift (Tisdell)

Solicitors:
Proceedings 2019/144528
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Barraclough Jones & Associates (Dufty)
Proceedings 2019/144531
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Rebecca McMahon (Tisdell)

File Number(s): 2019/144528 and 2019/144531
Publication restriction: Subject to non-publication orders pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), in respect of the identity of the persons identified by the pseudonyms “Mr Jones” and “Mr Smith” in the judgment.

Judgment

Early in the morning on Christmas Day 2018, Tyron Beauchamp was senselessly and violently killed by Darcy Dufty (“Mr Dufty”) and Andrue Tisdell (“Mr Tisdell).
Both offenders have pleaded guilty to Mr Beauchamp’s murder. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period…

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 Dufty; R v Tisdell

Details

AGLC: R v Dufty; R v Tisdell [2020] NSWSC 1920
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1920
Decision Date: 30 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dufty; R v Tisdell, the accused, Dufty and Tisdell, were charged with murder following pleas of guilty. The dispute centred around some facts of the offending, particularly those resting on the evidence of one witness, which was deemed unreliable. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the murder, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offending and the subjective factors relevant to the offenders. The court was required to consider the use of an L-bar, which caused blunt force injuries, and the subsequent disposal of the body in a forest, where it was mutilated by the offenders. The court also had to consider the principles outlined in Bugmy when determining the sentence.

The court found that the reliability of the witness's evidence was questionable, and thus, applied the Murray direction to assess the disputed facts. In determining the objective seriousness of the offending, the court considered the brutal nature of the attack and the circumstances of the disposal of the body. The court also took into account the subjective factors relevant to the offenders, such as their background, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation, in accordance with the principles set out in Bugmy. The court found that the offenders' actions exhibited special circumstances, which warranted a reduced sentence.

The court ultimately sentenced both offenders to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offending, the subjective factors relevant to the offenders, and the principles set out in Bugmy. The court found that a sentence of 25 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years, was appropriate for both offenders. The court also ordered that the offenders be subject to good behaviour bonds for a period of 10 years following their release from prison. This decision provides guidance for sentencing courts when dealing with cases involving murder, unreliable witness evidence, and the principles set out in Bugmy.

Orders