Regina v Dimond - [2000] NSWSC 1212

Reported Decision: 118 A Crim R 188

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Dimond [2000] NSWSC 1212

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70019/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20 November 2000 - 27 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 December 2000

PARTIES :

The Crown
Jayde Philip Dimond

JUDGMENT OF: Badgery-Parker AJ

COUNSEL : C K Maxwell QC (Crown)
C J Lyons (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid of NSW (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaughter by provocation - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Kenney (1983) VR 470
R v Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 148
R v Blacklidge (unreported) NSWCCA 12 December 1995
R v Alexander (1995) 78 A Crim R 141
R v Underhill (unreported) NSWCCA 9 May 1986)
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Moffitt (1990) 47 A Crim R 444

DECISION: See para 54

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BADGERY-PARKER AJ
MONDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2000
70019/00 REGINA v Jayde Philip DIMOND SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: In the early hours of 6 March 1999 in East Street, Harden the offender Jayde Philip Dimond stabbed Samuel Charles Dyball with a steak knife. Samuel Charles Dyball died at the scene. One of Dyball’s companions, Benjamin Carl Irving, received a stab wound to the upper arm. 2 On 20 November 2000 the offender was indicted on a charge of murder. To that charge he pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. On 27 November 2000 the jury returned a verdict to the same effect. 3 To a charge of using an offensive weapon with intent to maliciously wound Benjamin William Carl Irving, the offender pleaded not guilty. The jury acquitted him of that charge. 4 The offender had spent the evening of 5 March 1999 drinking, first at his home and then in the Grand Hotel with some people whom he did not really know. He had become quite intoxicated by the time when the hotel closed, and he “passed out” (he says), which I take to mean either that he became unconscious or that he fell asleep, on the footpath in East Street outside the hotel. He woke (or came to his senses) between 1 and 1.30am and started to walk home. He intended to walk west along Neill Street and had first to cross East Street. As he did so, someone in a group of people standing outside a shop known as the Hot Bake (on the west side of East Street and about 35 metres south of where the offender was crossing), saw him, and called out to him. There is no evidence of what was said or by whom and nothing to suggest that what was said to him was either offensive or unfriendly. The offender responded by walking diagonally across East Street to the vicinity of the Hot Bake where a group of young men and women were clustered on…

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 Regina v Dimond

Details

AGLC: Regina v Dimond [2000] NSWSC 1212
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1212
Decision Date: 18 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Dimond, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by provocation, an issue which was brought before the court for consideration. The defendant, Dimond, was charged with manslaughter in the death of his partner. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, as well as the legal principles surrounding the charge of manslaughter by provocation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also needed to consider the principles of provocation and whether the defendant's actions were justified under the circumstances. The court was further required to address whether the case raised any questions of principle that warranted the intervention of the High Court.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed on the defendant was appropriate and that there were no questions of principle that required the court's intervention. The court acknowledged that the defendant had acted in the heat of the moment, but ultimately determined that the sentence was fair and just. The court further held that the principles of provocation were correctly applied by the lower court, and that the defendant's actions did not warrant a more lenient sentence. The court concluded that the case did not raise any issues that required the attention of the High Court.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders