Which case won?

The case for the defence
  • The first shot killed the victim.
  • The victim’s death was an accident.
  • The defendant cannot be guilty of murder, manslaughter or attempted murder for firing the second and third shots, because the victim was already dead.
  • Firing the second and third shots was an extremely poor decision, but it was not murder.
The case for the prosecution
  • Even if the first shot was accidental, when the defendant fired the second and third shots, he believed that the victim was still alive and acted to kill him.
  • The offender deserves a significant jail term, as he clearly intended to kill the victim.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out
Case A Case B

Case B won. You were right!

How people voted
case a29%
case b71%

Expert commentary on the court's decision

Molly Hayter
Molly HayterParalegal
“The evidence of the pathologist and the forensic scientist did not exclude the possibility that the surviving man had not fired the first shot deliberately.”
Jury finds defendant guilty of attempted murder

In the case The Queen v Darrington [2016] VSC 60, the jury found the accused, Daniel Darrington, not guilty of murder or manslaughter. However, they did find him guilty of the attempted murder of Rocky Sparticus Matskassy, the man who had died.

During the sentencing hearing, the judge said that the jury’s verdict indicated that the members of the jury could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Darrington deliberately caused Mr Matskassy’s death.

However, the jury determined that he had intended to kill Mr Matskassy when he believed he was still alive.

Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter

The Australian laws relating to murder, attempted murder and manslaughter are all state-based. (Please see Murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, misadventure and accident – forms of death from unnatural causes.)

However, in practice there is not a great deal of difference between the laws which cover these crimes in the different Australian territories and states.

Did the gun go off accidentally? Or was the first shot fired deliberately?

For a jury to find a defendant guilty, it must be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt”. In this case, the fact that Mr Darrington shot Mr Matskassy a further two times with the clear intention to finish him off might suggest that the gun did not go off by accident when the first bullet was fired, as the surviving man claimed.

However, the court considered the evidence of both the pathologist and the forensic scientist who were called by the Crown at trial. This evidence did not exclude the possibility that Mr Darrington had not fired the first shot deliberately.

"Your determination to make sure he was dead"

In handing down the sentence, the judge said:

The jury must… have been satisfied that when you fired the second shot you believed that [the victim] was still alive and that you intended to kill him. The firing of the third shot, although not causally relevant to this crime, showed your determination to make sure that [he] was dead. You made the decision to deprive him of any chance of survival. In those circumstances your moral culpability is high, and although this is an unusual attempted murder it is nonetheless a reasonably serious example of the crime.

The judge noted that the case had “an air of unreality” about it, but this did not justify a lower sentence.

He jailed the man for eight years, with a non-parole period of five years.

NOTICE: This article is accurate as at the time of publication and does not constitute legal advice. Please see our legal notices page for more information. Information related to coronavirus can be outdated very quickly.

Latest from Stacks

chat button

Fill out this form and one of our local law professionals will be in contact

By submitting this form you agree to the terms of our Privacy policy