Peter Rex Dansie wins right to challenge murder conviction for drowning wife in Adelaide pond
Killer husband Peter Rex Dansie has won the right to challenge his murder conviction for drowning his wheelchair-bound wife in a city pond.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Obsessive killer husband Dansie faces sentencing submissions
- Guilty: Husband convicted of murder over wife’s drowning death
- How to get the most out of your Advertiser digital subscription
Peter Rex Dansie has won the right to challenge his murder conviction – but his sentencing for drowning his wife, Helen, will still go ahead later this week.
On Monday, the Court of Criminal Appeal granted Dansie permission to try to overturn his conviction for the April 2017 crime.
Greg Mead SC, for Dansie, argued his client had not only fallen victim to a miscarriage of justice, but also been denied an explanation as to why he was found guilty.
He said the Supreme Court had not paused, in its judgment, to say why Dansie’s “perfectly reasonable” evidence about the incident was rejected.
“The judge did not come to grips with the defence case and did not explain how the prosecution had disproved it,” he said.
“These were credible and reasonable possibilities on the evidence, and Dansie is entitled to know why the court rejected them.”
Dansie, 71, was last year found guilty of murdering Helen, 67, by pushing her into a Veale Gardens pond.
She was disabled due to a stroke – Dansie has long claimed her wheelchair accidentally went into the pond and she drowned despite his attempts to save her.
At trial, prosecutors argued – and the court agreed – Dansie had planned his wife’s murder for months and was obsessed with controlling her life and finances.
The court rejected Dansie’s explanations, finding he was similarly obsessed with pursuing sexual relationships with women in China.
On Monday, Mr Mead said the judge had reached those conclusions in error, saying neither motive was supported by the evidence.
He said his client already had control of Mrs Dansie’s finances – despite an ongoing dispute with the couple’s son, Grant – and therefore had no reason to kill her.
He argued the couple’s relationship “had not deteriorated” and, even if it had, her residence in a nursing home left him free to pursue whatever “unrealistic fantasies” he liked without encumbrance.
Mr Mead said too much weight had been attached to Dansie’s calm demeanour immediately after the drowning.
“He spent 16 hours in the company of police, answering their questions, engaging in lengthy conversations and generally co-operating,” he said.
“He showed no signs of nervousness, no suggestion of a guilty conscience... this is, on the prosecution case, a man who had been planning to kill his wife and had just succeeded in doing so.
“He behaved almost exactly as you would expect an innocent man to behave, and you cannot argue that – it’s the evidence.”
Justice Trish Kelly ruled Dansie’s case was arguable and remanded him in custody to face the Full Court of the Court of Criminal Appeal in May.
Dansie is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday – the penalty for murder is a life sentence, with a minimum 20-year non-parole period.
However, Mr Mead has already argued Dansie’s age and poor health warrant a lesser minimum term so as to spare him dying in jail.
