R v Ian Dacey; R v Lee Dacey (No 3)

In the case of R v Ian Dacey; R v Lee Dacey (No 3), the defendants Ian Dacey and Lee Dacey were involved in a criminal proceeding before the court. The dispute centred around the concept of joint criminal enterprise and the defendants' respective roles within it. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the liability of one co-accused in a joint criminal enterprise could depend on the liability of another co-accused, particularly when the actor principal relied on self-defence as a defence.

The court had to determine whether a non-actor principal could be held guilty if the actor principal was acquitted on the basis of self-defence. The defendants argued that if the actor principal was not guilty, the non-actor principal should also not be held liable. However, the court had to consider whether the liability of the non-actor principal was derivative of the actor principal's liability or whether it stood independently. The court rejected the application for a direction that would make the liability of the non-actor principal dependent on the actor principal's outcome. The court found that the liability of each defendant was to be assessed independently based on the evidence presented, and that the non-actor principal could still be held guilty even if the actor principal was acquitted.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that in a joint criminal enterprise, each participant's liability is determined by their own actions and intent, rather than being derivative of another participant's actions. The court held that the non-actor principal's liability was not contingent on the actor principal's acquittal on self-defence grounds. The final orders of the court were that the application for a direction was rejected, and each defendant's case would proceed on its individual merits.