R v Darcy (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 593

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Darcy (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 593 Hearing dates: 9 April 2021 Date of orders: 13 April 2021 Decision date: 13 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: Paragraph 3(iv) of the Subpoena for Production issued to the Commissioner of Police filed 11 March 2021 is set aside Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoenas – application to set aside subpoena in part – no legitimate forensic purpose - application granted Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey (2008) 182 A Crim R 536 Carroll v Attorney General (NSW) (1993) 70 A Crim R 162 Fantakis v Local Court of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 931 Mann v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWSC 369 R v Darcy [2021] NSWSC 12 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Natasha Beth Darcy (Accused) Representation: Counsel: B Hatfield (Crown) J Manuell SC / N Broadbent (Accused)

Solicitors: Makinson d'Apice Lawyers (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Randall Legal (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/349418 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. The accused is charged with the murder of her domestic partner, Mathew John Dunbar, at Walcha on 2 August 2017. It is the Crown case that the accused faked the suicide of Mr Dunbar by sedating him with a cocktail of drugs, including an animal sedative, (Acepromazine), that she obtained from a vet and that she attached a plastic bag to his head with elastic tied around his neck and pumped helium from a cylinder she had ordered into the bag, thus asphyxiating Mr Dunbar and causing his death. 2. The Commissioner for Police filed in Court on 23 March 2021 a Notice of Motion dated 11 March 2021 seeking an order that part of a subpoena issued to him by the accused be set aside because that part of the subpoena lacked legitimate forensic purpose. 3. Written submissions were provided by Mr Regener, a solicitor retained to appear on behalf of the Commissioner, and Mr Broadbent, counsel for the accused. Oral argument proceeded on 8 April 2021. The Crown Prosecutor also provided a brief submission to assist me in understanding some relevant context. 4. On 13 April 2021, having considered the arguments made and the relevant authorities, I ruled that the subparagraph of the subpoena in issue should be set aside as lacking legitimate forensic purpose. These are my reasons for that decision.