Peter Dansie murder trial aborted after defence objects to Justice David Peek’s comments in court

A judge says he has been left with no choice but to throw out a murder trial — at an estimated cost of $325,000 — after lawyers complained he had undermined an alleged killer’s right to silence.

• THE CHARGE: ‘Wife was a burden killer would no longer tolerate’
• THE SON: ‘Mum was always dirty … I wore a wire to talk to Dad’
• THE FALL: Murder accused hits head after court visits crime scene
• THE CLAIM: Man refused to spend ‘his’ money on wife’s needs

The murder case of Peter Rex Dansie has ended in a mistrial after lawyers complained the judge hearing the trial had “undermined” the alleged killer’s fundamental right to silence.

On Thursday — and against his “strong inclination” — Supreme Court Justice David Peek brought the trial to a premature end after 13 days and an estimated cost of $325,000.

Dansie’s lawyers had applied for a mistrial, saying Justice Peek had twice given the “strong impression” their client should give evidence in his own defence.

SA law gives him the right not to take the stand — it is for prosecutors to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he drowned his wife Helen, not for him to disprove the allegation.

Peter Rex Dansie leaves the Supreme Court after the mistrial was declared. Picture: AAP/Kelly Barnes.

In his ruling, Justice Peek said he had reached no conclusions about Dansie’s culpability and denied his comments indicated otherwise.

“I do not accept, in any way, that he has been denied his right or that he has had his right impinged upon,” he said.

“So it is that, in all of the circumstances, my strong inclination was to reject this application — however, (the prosecutor) stated that he did not oppose the application.

“In those circumstances, and against my strong inclination to continue this trial, I feel I really have no choice but to accede to the application.”

Outside court, the couple’s son Grant said the mistrial was frustrating.

“This is very disappointing … obviously it’s been a very traumatic series of events,” he said.

“It’s taken a very long time — it’s two years since Mum died — and we were really looking forward to getting a conclusion in this case.

“We just want to see justice achieved.”

Peter and Helen Dansie.

Dansie, 70, has pleaded not guilty to having murdered Helen, 67, by drowning her in a Veale Gardens pond in April 2017.

She was disabled due to a stroke — Dansie says her wheelchair accidentally went into the pond and she drowned despite his attempts to save her.

Prosecutors say he threw her into the water because she was “a burden he was no longer prepared to tolerate”, then embarked on “a course of deception and subterfuge” to avoid arrest.

The trial began on May 14 and has been conducted both in the absence of a jury and in a non-standard manner.

Greg Mead SC, for Dansie, challenged large parts of the prosecution case, including the involvement of several witnesses, and asked it be ruled inadmissable.

Rather than hear from those witnesses twice — once for legal argument and again at trial — Justice Peek elected to hear the full prosecution case, then make admissibility rulings.

That, it was hoped, would allow the trial to conclude by May 31 so that Justice Peek could hear a civil lawsuit trial starting on June 3.

Justice David Peek.

On Thursday, Mr Mead said comments made by Justice Peek during the case meant it could not continue.

The first, he said, was when Justice Peek told him: “You will have to think long and hard before coming to the decision not to call your client in this case.”

He said Justice Peek went on to say Dansie “needs to think very carefully about electing not to give evidence in a ‘trial by judge alone’ trial”.

“After all of that, Dansie is left with the strong impression that, in the mind of the judge who’s hearing his trial, it’s going to hurt his case if he doesn’t give evidence,” he said.

“In other words, his right to choose whether to give evidence in the trial or not has been compromised.

“He has a right to remain silent and, with respect, the comments of Your Honour had the tendency to undermine that right.”

Mr Mead said “no amount of reassurance” could cure the problem, and a mistrial was the only option.

Prosecutor Jim Pearce QC said he did not oppose the mistrial application.

“In my submission it becomes a real problem for this trial on such a fundamental issue,” he said.

In his ruling, Justice Peek said his comments related to the scheduling and time-management of the trial, and should be viewed in their proper context.

Helen Dansie was disabled following a stroke.

He said careful scheduling had been made necessary by the trial’s non-standard structure, the time allotted and late notice from the defence of new evidence and witnesses.

“I’ve certainly not come to any view as to the outcome of this trial,” he said.

“I’ve certainly never said anything during the course of this trial that could in any way convey to Dansie that I in any way think he’s guilty of the charge.”

He remanded Dansie on continuing home detention bail to face court again on Monday, when a new trial date will be set.

Outside court, Grant Dansie — who lives overseas — said he was not concerned about returning to Adelaide and giving evidence again.

“I think it’s only natural for any son to want justice for his mother,” he said.

“Mum was a fantastic mum, she was the best mum you could ever imagine … she was always there for me.

“I have nothing but fond memories of Mum and all the time she spent with me and all the things she did … she was a fantastic mum, and a fantastic member of the community.”