Crown v Accused

1. On the morning of Sunday 16 July 2023, you, Dylan Wyatt, and you, Kasha McIver, went to a house on Binalong Avenue, Chadstone (which I will refer to as 'the Binalong Avenue house'), in a taxi organised by you, Brendan Dalton. Matthew Warrington, the deceased, was at that residence. What exactly happened to Mr Warrington that Sunday may never be known - although at one stage that day you, Ms McIver, took a photo of Mr Warrington seemingly naked at least from the waist up being held up by tape that ran around his neck by you, Mr Wyatt, and several cuts and bruises were inflicted to his body while he was still alive - but on any view Mr Warrington was assaulted and died as a result. Attempts were then made to cut off his legs, and his body was then put in a wheelie bin and dropped by a nearby trainline - save for a finger which you, Mr Wyatt, had cut off and kept with you as some form of trophy.
2. On 30 April 2025, you, Ms McIver and you, Mr Wyatt both pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Warrington. You, Mr Dalton, pleaded not guilty but on 5 June 2025, a jury found you guilty of that manslaughter.
3. In sentencing each of you, it is necessary that I bear in mind that facts or circumstances that are adverse to your position, where not agreed, must be established by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt and that facts or circumstances relied on by you that are in your favour, where not agreed, must be established by you on the balance of probabilities. Further, the evidence available in the sentencing of each of you is not identical. In particular, absent agreement to the contrary:

(a) admissions made by any one of you are not admissible against the others;

(b) the matters set out in the summary of prosecution opening, on the basis of which Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt pleaded guilty, where disputed are not binding on Mr Dalton;

(c) the evidence led in the trial of Mr Dalton is not admissible against Ms McIver or Mr Wyatt save to the extent that they rely on it; and

(d) the evidence led by any one of you in your own mitigation is not admissible against the others.

1. This means that the factual bases on which I am required to sentence each of you will not be identical and indeed may differ in significant respects.[1]
2. It is convenient, however, first to make findings of background fact that are relevant in the sentencing of each of you. Because these matters relate to the sentencing of you all, I will use your names, rather than address you directly.

B The background to the offending, the offending, the disposal of Mr Warrington's body and the burning of the Binalong Avenue house

(a) Ms McIver, who was then 36 years old, was living at the Binalong Avenue house;

(b) Mr Warrington, the deceased, who was then 47 years old, had recently moved into the Binalong Avenue house with Ms McIver;

(c) Mr Dalton, who was then 52 years old, was living at an address in Boronia. He had met Ms McIver, it seems the previous day, but had not met Mr Wyatt_;_

(d) Mr Wyatt, who was then 35 years old, had recently started a relationship with Ms McIver. He had been staying with her at the Binalong Avenue house, but had recently moved out; and

(e) Rhonda Gilligan and Ian Dierickx, who are partners, and their housemate Christopher Hill, were living at an address in Seaford (which I will refer to as 'the Seaford house'). Ms Gilligan and Mr Dierickx had known Mr Wyatt for some 12 or 13 years, as Ms Gilligan is friends with Mr Wyatt's mother, Barbara Wyatt. But they were not in frequent contact and had not spoken to him for some time.

1. On 12 July 2023, Ms Gilligan and Mr Dierickx dropped Mr Hill at the airport and, when they returned, they found Mr Wyatt knocking on their door. Mr Wyatt told them he was homeless and asked if he could stay for a couple of days. Ms Gilligan and Mr Dierickx agreed he could stay for a couple of nights in Mr Hill's room while Mr Hill was interstate. Ms Gilligan texted Mr Wyatt's mother, Barbara Wyatt, and informed her that Mr Wyatt was with them.
2. At one point, two little bottles fell out of Mr Wyatt's jumper, which Ms Gilligan thought looked like eye-droppers and she said to Mr Wyatt 'You've dropped your eye drops', to which he responded, 'Nah, they're not eye drops, they're acid and I use them to spray into people's eyes, as you can turn them blind within half an hour'.

1. The following morning, on Thursday 13 July 2023, after Mr Wyatt had already left the Seaford house, Barbara Wyatt visited and asked Ms Gilligan if Mr Wyatt could stay one more night. Whilst his mother was visiting, Mr Wyatt returned, and appeared, according to Ms Gilligan, to be drug affected. He asked if his girlfriend, referring to Ms McIver, could come over. Barbara Wyatt gave him a phone to replace his broken one and he spent the remainder of the day at the house setting up his phone.

1. On the following day, Friday 14 July 2023, at 8.30am, police officers attended the Binalong Avenue house to execute a search warrant. Ms McIver and the deceased, Mr Warrington, were present. During the search, the police found and seized six 500 mL bottles of 1,4-butanediol, an illicit 'party drug' also known as GHB or 'juice'. These drugs belonged to Mr Warrington, who dealt in drugs. However, Ms McIver took responsibility: she told the police that she had purchased the bottles of 1,4-butanediol on the dark web and intended to sell the bottles 'to make two or three times the profit'.
2. Ms McIver was arrested and charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 2008. Mr Warrington was not. Ms McIver was granted bail by police and, at around 1.35pm, she was driven back to the Binalong Avenue house by Senior Constable Benko.
3. Mr Dalton and Mr Warrington had contact by phone on this day including in the period while Ms McIver was in the company of the police.
4. The agreement between Mr Dalton, Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver to assault Mr Warrington was formed, at least in part, in response to the fact that the deceased permitted, if not asked, Ms McIver to take the fall, so to speak, for these drugs.

1. During the morning of Saturday 15 July 2023, there was further phone contact between Mr Dalton and Mr Warrington and between Mr Dalton and Ms McIver. Mr Dalton went to the Binalong Avenue house at approximately 3.30pm where he met with Ms McIver. It is not clear whether Mr Warrington was present. At around 6.25pm, Ms McIver used Mr Dalton's phone to call and text Mr Wyatt. At about 7.05pm, Mr Dalton and Ms McIver returned together to Mr Dalton's house in Boronia. During this time, multiple calls were placed between Mr Dalton and Mr Wyatt's phone, including a call at 7.02pm that lasted 44 minutes and 4 seconds and a call at 9.21pm that lasted 46 minutes and 46 seconds.
2. Mr Wyatt remained at the Seaford house.

B.5.1 16 July 2023 - Events leading up to Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver entering the Binalong Avenue house

1. At approximately 1.00am on Sunday 16 July 2023, Ms McIver caught a taxi to the Seaford house where she met Mr Wyatt. She had several suitcases with her. By this time, Mr Hill had returned from Tasmania and was lying on the couch in the living room. Mr Hill overheard Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt talking on speaker phone to another male caller. Mr Hill says he overheard the following exchanges:

(a) Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt referring to the other caller as 'Brendan';

(b) Mr Wyatt saying 'I'll throw acid in his face';

(c) Ms McIver saying 'I want to torture him';

(d) Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver discussing how they wanted to tie someone up before torturing them;

(e) Ms McIver saying 'What about the other bloke', to which Mr Wyatt responded 'Don't worry about it. I'll fuck him up';

(f) Ms McIver saying to the caller 'If you're fucking us around, I'll fucking kill you', to which the other person responds 'Nah, nah, nah, nah, they're still here, they're still here';

(g) Mr Wyatt saying 'If you help us out, we'll chop you up. We'll give you $500'; and

(h) the other person advising Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver not to be taxied directly in front of the house and to 'get dropped off a couple of houses down so it doesn't look like you're coming directly here'.

1. I am satisfied that the other person on the call was Mr Dalton and that these conversations concerned assaults that were being planned for Mr Warrington at the Binalong Avenue house.
2. Mr Dalton then sent a series of text messages to Mr Wyatt's phone that confirmed his participation in the agreement, that included Ms McIver, to assault Mr Warrington. I am satisfied that both Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver had access to Mr Wyatt's phone during these exchanges. As the following demonstrates, the text messages establish that as well as generally encouraging the proposed assault of Mr Warrington, Mr Dalton:

(a) advised Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver as to Mr Warrington's presence and ability to resist an assault; and

(b) arranged for taxis to take Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver to the Binalong Avenue house where Mr Warrington was.

1. I will not read the text messages out in their entirety, but the following extracts indicate their nature:

he is staying at her place in Chadstone because he actually had the cheak to say he has moved in there and I said Fucking get him out of there bro, she's too good for him bro he will Rince her and that's not fair so please help get rid him or spook him away with the house is red-hot shit what he said yeah man I live there now so fuck man she needs to

Anyways just have her know mate that the dick is sitting at her place right now

Also keep thst other phone off she has cause he's doing checks on it for location now and then and keep it off cause his google accounts is singed in. I'm pretty sure I disabled location and also signed him out of google so phone can't be seen in the time screen and I turned off the find my phone and if she can't get into the phone I will tell her a cheat way of cracking the screen lock if he reset it and I will reset it back by telling her a code to punch into it cause he changed the code remotely but I can break his code remotely also

1. Over the next few hours, a series of short calls were placed, one between Mr Dalton and Ms McIver, three between Mr Dalton and Mr Wyatt, and significantly, a call by Mr Dalton to Mr Warrington that lasted 6 minutes and 51 seconds at 3.49am.
2. Then, shortly after 4.01am, Mr Dalton sent a series of text messages to Mr Wyatt's phone including the following:

He is still there and I am sorting out an Uber for you guys. It's the last my cash so once you rince the fuck would be awesome to get a little cunt just for sorting the Uber that's gonna cost me 75 buck. I need the exact addy from where to where.

he's def at Chadstone and he is shitty as and I just keep saying I don't and all I no is she went in a cop car etc. He's reloaded shard etc he won't remember what hap

he's got no body there I made sure I sussed th[a]t so it's just him so u will get the upper hand and just smash the cunt and dose him about 5ml of juice an[d] if you belt him then shove 3 or 4 ml into him of juice he wont rem what hap and then dump the cunt outside or god knows but I will send u a Uber soon as u send me addy

def now a good time to hit him cause he be cashed up and he always gets bags of shard so he bag there and he would of got more juice and he would of got p

send addy when ya ready and I will send ya a Uber.

1. The word 'addy', clearly enough, means 'address'. 'Shard' is another name for methamphetamine, also commonly referred to as 'ice'. 'Juice', as previously discussed, is a reference to GHB which, in large doses, can act as a sedative.
2. At 4.13am, a phone call was placed between Mr Dalton and Mr Warrington that lasted 46 minutes and 44 seconds.
3. At 4.31 am, Ms McIver sent texts to Mr Dalton that confirmed her involvement in the planned assault:

[i]t's about principle I'm a single mother you know the rules do you know the way it goes and remember it stays between us three I know I don't have to say

Hubby says we're going to do everything you said only ever gonna knock him out then juice him we want to hurt him this time we want to hurt him ...

1. 'Hubby', I conclude, was a reference to Mr Wyatt, and 'juice him' meant, I conclude, to administer GHB to Mr Warrington against his will so as to incapacitate him.
2. Mr Wyatt then added:

it's dilz my bro don't worry I'm a man of my word you looked after my missus tonight for me and I think will go three-way split with this between us

1. 'Dilz' is Mr Wyatt, whose first name is Dylan.
2. I am satisfied, from this and other communications, that part of the agreement was to rob Mr Warrington and to split the proceeds among the three of them.
3. Beginning at 5.03am, Mr Dalton sent further text messages including the following:

reaked so best time is now

played all dumb and he has half a bag on him and he had 2 oz of weed and cash I spose but he has some fuckwit sleeping on the couch who is a weak cunt apparently but forgot the cunts name.... Do ya want me to book you an Uber. He said he's going to have a nap now cause he's W.

I can send a Uber anytime bro. The other cunt there is fast asleep off his head apparently and Matt said he needs a nap so he's fucked out and you will remember a thing easy get the upper hand on him and he wouldn't even see it coming and just smash him and juice him up and he won't know what the fuck

I would of got stitched up over Matt's juice. If would have fucked a lot for me and one thing is a b[i]g no no and that's fucking with someone's family and he did that by putting ya mrs under them charges cause that's hectic 4.5 litres and that's easy 12 months jail and that will fuck her over more than it would Matt who [i]s just a low life homeless cunt who has no responsibility and who just is fucking weak as fuck for not putting his hand up for the juice and I hate cunts that can't own there sh[i]t they do and he not a man if he can 't own his bullsh[i]t and let's a chick take the fall. As I said to ya mrs and yes you should hurt him cause he fucked with a mum who got kids and I got a daughter and know how much it would of fucked me when my daughter was young he looses all my respect for what he did and I will just play the cunt the fool he is and out smart him and us three will fuck him up so I get the tabs on him and have sussed him out and thrown him way off the track so he's got no idea of what's planned

1. There were then further telephone calls, followed by a further series of text messages sent by Mr Dalton to Mr Wyatt's phone, beginning at 6.43am, including as follows:

Tazer is in the make up box

and also I was thinking this ambush u worry about is impossible because Matt's a weak cunt and he's gonna ambush even his grand mother any where

by looking at dillion on the video phone he would totally wreck Matt so there is no match th[a]t was obvious when I say Dillon and and he's more staunch looking

so stick up for ya self and what u did is worth 5k easy

anyways don't give him anything back and fuck the pc just say u don't know cause the dog owes u for making u take the wrap for his bulls[h]it and that ain't u not u owe him or should care about his mushrooms and juice and Lappy

He owes ya simple and dillion wo[u]ld agree

Don't give a shit back it defeats the purpose cause he fucked u over and made u take the fall for 4.5 litres and that's 18 months jail and I think he owes

1. Mr Dalton arranged transportation for Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt to travel from the Seaford house to the Binalong Avenue house. It required one taxi and two Uber bookings because Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt missed the first Uber and then Mr Dalton had some dispute with the taxi driver he booked. The booking information show the pair ultimately left at 7.50am and arrived at their destination at 8.27am in an Uber booked by Mr Dalton.
2. While Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt were travelling towards the Binalong Avenue house, further text messages were exchanged between Mr Dalton and Mr Wyatt's phones:

I'm trusting you also to not tell matt that I tipped u off and what we said stays between u and me and Dillon ok cause I have played a dumb cunt to Matt and swore on cops coming and then me having to leave. And I said I have not spoken to you since and I will suss the cunt now if u want and give u a heads up on what's he's doing

Yes I know lips sealed to be spoken of out loud again Dylan from Dylan

Thanks I appreciate cause I have him in the dark with what is to come and he has no idea and he told me that he climbed in via a window and he's still there and he know literally nothing so let's keep it that way cause I can be of use again if need be on getting u info on the cunt cause im pissed at him making ya mrs take the wrap

He said he put check books in his mates car so target that without having him know I told ya. Steal the cunts car and drive home in it and I will buy it off ya as a hottie and get some cloned plates

So if ya take his car I can grab it and stash it and clone the cunt and use it and he won't know

Matt made her take the wrap is when I lost total respect for him and he deserves what he cops. He can't do that shit it's a low dog act and weak as fuck

Good luck guys and I got faith in ya both to come out on top with the gronk. I see on the map ya nearly there so take a deep breath and let ya mrs know that there is no stupid ambush maybe a fat bush lol but not a ambush cause who could he get lol

Best of luck, kick ass guys

1. That same morning, after Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver had left the Seaford house, Ms Gilligan and Mr Dierickx awoke to find their kitchen knives missing, along with an extendable baton. It was later discovered that a crowbar was also missing. An extendable baton, a crowbar, and a kitchen knife were all later found at the Binalong Avenue house. I am satisfied that they were taken by Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver for use in the planned assault on Mr Warrington.
2. Although the Uber arrived at about 8.30am, it seems that Mr Warrington was not then at the Binalong Avenue house. It is not clear, and it does not much matter, what Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver did for the next hour and a half. At approximately 9.20am, CCTV footage shows Mr Warrington entering the house with an unknown male. Shortly after, the unknown male leaves the house. CCTV footage shows that at approximately 9.54am, Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt walked towards the house then entered the house through a window.

B.5.2 16 July 2023 - The death of Mr Warrington and subsequent arrival of Mr Dalton

1. As I mentioned before, what exactly happened to Mr Warrington that led to his death after the arrival of Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver, and who did what, is not clear, but it was clearly very violent and unpleasant.
2. The medical evidence, based on an examination of Mr Warrington's body after he had been killed, was not able to establish the precise cause of death. It did establish, however, that:

(a) his face was covered with congealed blood and there was extensive bruising over Mr Warrington's body and in particular his face and head indicative of trauma sufficient to cause unconsciousness;

(b) there were signs of 'neck compression', albeit not the typical signs of death by strangulation, and tape was found around his neck;

(c) he had been cut on both elbows while he was still alive;

(d) he had been cut on his arms and back after he was dead;

(e) serious attempts had been made to cut off both his legs above the knees after he was dead; and

(f) his left ring finger had been cut off after he was dead.

1. Relevant to the signs of neck compression, as I mentioned earlier, three photographs were taken by Ms McIver of Mr Wyatt holding Mr Warrington, off the ground by what I am satisfied is tape around his neck, and with his hands seemingly tied behind his back and appearing naked at least from the waist up. Mr Wyatt is standing with one leg on either side of Mr Warrington, or Mr Warrington's body, holding him up by one hand, and making the 'devil sign' (or 'sign of the horns') with the other hand. It is not known when the photographs were taken.
2. I am satisfied that Mr Warrington was savagely beaten and cut with a knife while he was alive, and that the beating caused his death, and that further cuts were inflicted on his body after his death. I am unable to say whether Mr Warrington was alive or dead, or conscious or unconscious, at the time the photographs were taken. The police later found the baton taken from the Seaford house at the Binalong Avenue house with Mr Warrington's blood on it. Notwithstanding that 'tram track' markings typical of the use of a baton were not found on Mr Warrington's body, in light of his blood being on the baton, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the baton was used in the beating.
3. Mr Dalton (who was not then at the Binalong Avenue house) sent text messages to Mr Wyatt's phone between 10.19am and 11.13am asking for information. At 2.10pm, Mr Dalton placed a call lasting 4 minutes and 40 seconds to Mr Wyatt's phone. Shortly after, at 2.27pm, Mr Dalton sent the following text message:

Make the cunt write out some how a suicide note. Then think of train tracks and a train and the note and all the evidence is smashed by a train lol

1. Then, at 2.28pm, Mr Dalton sent text messages including the following:

Won't even get looked into

I will come down and keep t[e]xts down and I'm deleting everything so there is no convo

1. At 4.29pm, Mr Dalton went by Uber (booked in the name of 'Paul Smith') to a place near the Binalong Avenue house. While on the way, Mr Dalton sent a further series of text messages to Mr Wyatt between 4.16pm and 4.46pm including the following:

I'm in Uber and you can see my eta. We got to keep this between us three never to be spoken and over everything we got to all cover each others back as in we don't know who the fuck is who. U get the drunk you know what ya doing and ya got my word that I know nothing. I think we all got that loyalty

kept him bluffed thinking he god when he ain't lol. See ya soon cuz looking forward to meeting ya cause ya def seem to have the same set of principles

explained she wasn't a dog if she gave no comment it's him the dog for not putting his hand up for such a fuck up. So wrong and glad she told me so I could keep telling her it isn't right and to not cop this shit and [b]etween us mate I'm a loyal cunt and I gave ya mrs my word I would sort this fucking issue and did what I do to get the job done and got u a cab there

1. Between 5.39pm and 5.54pm, Ms McIver checked the rubbish bins at the Binalong Avenue house. In light of what subsequently occurred, I am satisfied that this was for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was room in them to fit Mr Warrington's body. Mr Dalton arrived at the Binalong Avenue house at 6.08pm.
2. I am satisfied that the serious assaults on Mr Warrington that led to his death took place prior to Mr Dalton's arrival at the Binalong Avenue house, and that Mr Dalton knew, when he headed over to Binalong Avenue, that Mr Warrington had been at least very badly hurt. I conclude that Mr Warrington had died, or was at least so close to death that he could not be saved, by the time that Mr Dalton arrived.
3. Mr Dalton and Ms McIver left the Binalong Avenue house at 8.05pm, without Mr Wyatt, and returned at 9.40pm. The three of them then remained there that night, with the body of Mr Warrington.

B.6 Monday 17 July 2023 and various text messages

1. At approximately 6.19am on Monday 17 July 2023, a wheelie bin was moved to the front of the Binalong Avenue house. At approximately 6.54am, Mr Dalton left. Despite knowing that Mr Wyatt was (alone or with Ms McIver) responsible for Mr Warrington's death, CCTV captures him shaking Mr Wyatt's hand and being in no apparent distress as he did so. At approximately 7.07am, the wheelie bin was pulled inside the house. Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver remained at the Binalong Avenue house for the rest of the day.
2. At 9.27am on 17 July 2023, Mr Dalton sent the following two messages to Mr Wyatt's phone:

Hey cuz you all good and get ya lawns mowed and garden cleaned up bro? Hope all is good cause a decent amount of fucking work went into getting that yard looking sweet and how is the mrs? Is she better cause I think she worked hard and got a bit dehydrated and over tired from so much work in the garden she did yesterday. All went pretty well and spose and just think since he new to working in trade work that she needed to learn to listen to the boss more and only ask questions not try argue about what way of doing things before she learns from trade school and more experience in the practical side of the job

Anyway I think he handled it well and I hope you guys are all lovey again cause ya both make a good couple. Have a sick day and I will call ya after work cuz. Thanks for the nice respect you gave me as it means a lot and you're a good cunt and I like ya and knew I would cause we got a bit in common and I like how ya do things the old school way and just do not say u can cause very cunt says they can but it's only a very small handful of people who are the real deal and ya got my respect for life brother. Cheers bro

1. Less than 30 minutes later, at 9.55am, Mr Dalton sent a further text message, stating:

I have disabled mats android account and turned off auto cloud back up just so nothing gets sorted

1. Over the next two hours, six phone calls were made between Mr Dalton and Mr Wyatt.
2. At 11.38am, Mr Dalton called Mr Warrington's phone. The call lasted for 45 seconds. At 12.02pm, Mr Dalton sent a message to Mr Wyatt's phone stating:

It's weird cause I tried to call Matty and phones still off and I left him a message saying to call and to wake the fuck up. Just wanted to see how he is cause the other night he was talking some dark shit on the phone that was depressing and I had to tell him to shut up because he was pulling my mood down

Have you spoken to the Cunt cause if ya do can you tell the dick to ring me please. Thanks heaps

1. I conclude that the 11.38am phone call to Mr Warrington was made by Mr Dalton at a time when he knew that Mr Warrington was already dead and that there would likely be an investigation into his death, and that the two text messages were sent by Mr Dalton in order to create a false impression that Mr Warrington was still alive at this time in order to conceal his involvement in Mr Warrington's death.
2. The same afternoon, Ms Gilligan and Mr Dierickx exchanged messages with Mr Wyatt's phone. Ms Gilligan texted Mr Wyatt that his mother, Barbara Wyatt, had said 'if you want to go down that pathway as bonnie and clyde' he would need to collect his and Ms McIver's belongings and leave their home. Mr Wyatt responded, stating that he and Ms McIver were both 'too far in the underworld to go back' and that he 'had to borrow the extendable baton' and that 'he will return it cleaned'. Ms McIver said that they were 'really busy'. At 10.56pm on 17 July 2023, the three photographs of Mr Warrington that I have referred earlier to were sent to Ms Gilligan.

1. At approximately 5.58am on Tuesday 18 July 2023, Mr Wyatt took the body of Mr Warrington in the wheelie bin from the Binalong Avenue house to nearby railway tracks and dumped the body down an embankment where it came to rest against a tree in fenced off scrub. As I said, attempts had been made to cut off Mr Warrington's legs above the knee for the purpose, I am satisfied, of more easily fitting his body into a wheelie bin. The wheelie bin was left on the nature strip of a nearby house.
2. Mr Wyatt later assisted police in locating the body.
3. Later that morning, Mr Dalton, who had since returned home, sent a text message to Mr Wyatt at 11.36am which read:

Try his tap and go because think the dsp goes in Monday nights

1. I am satisfied that this was a suggestion by Mr Dalton to Mr Wyatt that he use Mr Warrington's bank card to steal his disability support pension. There is no evidence that this was ever done.
2. Between 8.32pm and 8.48pm, Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver moved their belongings out of the Binalong Avenue house. Shortly afterwards, the house was set on fire. I am satisfied that the fire was deliberately lit in an attempt to prevent or hinder any police investigation into Mr Warrington's death.
3. Later that evening, Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver returned to the Seaford house. Mr Wyatt produced some gladwrap (or a freezer bag) containing Mr Warrington's finger and some more photographs of Mr Warrington in distress, copies of which have not been located. Mr Wyatt made some admissions, and sought to justify his conduct on the grounds that Mr Warrington was a paedophile. There was otherwise no evidence to that effect, and I do not accept that Mr Warrington was a paedophile or that that was the reason for which he was assaulted. The two of them then left the Seaford house.

1. On Wednesday 19 July 2023, Mr Dalton returned to the question of stealing from Mr Warrington. At 8.52am, he sent a text message to Mr Wyatt's phone that said:

Tash remember that Matt fuck had that brown wallet and he use to stash it someplace and that night before he had it full of notes so search the fuck out of everything because when you mentioned no wallet it just came to me then with I remember seeing a brown wallet he was using at that hotel that night. If you haven't found it I reakon it has to be there someplace... that man hole check up there even. Plus his tap and go check daily because dsp will go in any any time. Are you guys okay and stuff. Stay in touch hey

1. There is no suggestion that any of this was acted on.

1. On 22 July 2023, Mr Dalton called Crime Stoppers. Calls made to Crime Stoppers are not recorded but the operator makes detailed notes. I am satisfied that the written record made of that call by the Crime Stoppers operator was accurate. In it, Mr Dalton said, among other things, that he was on the phone to Mr Warrington on Saturday 15 July 2023 between 6pm and 7pm during which he heard Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt screaming at Mr Warrington and Mr Warrington scream, after which the call disconnected, that he only discovered Mr Warrington's death after reading about in a newspaper, and that he was worried that his name would come up as he was the 'last person' Mr Warrington spoke with.

1. Ms McIver was arrested at the Seaford house on the night of 20 July 2023. She had bruises and abrasions to her face and body, a swollen lip and a black eye. She told police that Mr Wyatt had inflicted these injuries, and that the things she did at the Binalong Avenue house she did 'under duress' from Mr Wyatt and that she was afraid of him.
2. Mr Wyatt was arrested in Berwick on 21 July 2023. He had redness at the top of his hands and small abrasions on his fingers. He took the police to Mr Warrington's body. He told the police, in summary, that he had asked Mr Warrington to check on Ms McIver but that he had instead moved in, Ms McIver had asked for his help in getting Mr Warrington out of her house, Mr Warrington was a serial rapist and a paedophile whose plan was to set Ms McIver up so that he could 'take her kid', Mr Warrington attacked him and he fought back in self-defence, he 'lost it' and hit and overpowered Mr Warrington, Mr Warrington then stopped breathing, and he and Ms McIver then panicked.
3. Mr Dalton was arrested on 12 September 2023 (after the police had obtained access to the stored communications on Mr Wyatt's phone). He told police that he had not spoken to Mr Warrington since 12 July 2023, he was not involved in his killing, he had attended the Binalong Avenue house to drop off some speakers for Ms McIver, he met and spoke to Ms McIver out the front, he asked where Mr Warrington was and Ms McIver responded that she did not want to take his 'innocence' from him, a man matching Mr Wyatt's description came outside with blood on his hands, and then Mr Dalton left having never gone inside.
4. On 11 June 2024, following a committal hearing, you were each committed for trial for murder. On 26 November 2024, the Crown indicated to each a willingness to accept a plea of guilty for manslaughter. On or about 17 April 2025, following an unsuccessful application for a sentence indication,[2] Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver indicated a willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter and shortly thereafter, following the filing over of a fresh indictment, they did so.
5. On 5 May 2025, the Crown filed over a fresh indictment against Mr Dalton by which he was charged with manslaughter (not murder). Following some preliminary argument, a jury was empanelled on 15 May 2025 and the trial of Mr Dalton then ran for 16 days. Neither Mr Wyatt nor Ms McIver gave evidence. Mr Dalton gave evidence in his own defence. He did not dispute that he had entered into an agreement for an unlawful assault on Mr Warrington, but disputed that the agreement was for an assault that amounted to a dangerous act. It was part of his defence that Mr Wyatt, in particular, had acted well beyond the scope of what had been agreed. The jury found Mr Dalton guilty.

1. By either your plea or by the verdict reached by a jury, the sentencing of each of you must proceed on the basis that none of you intended that Mr Warrington would be killed or very seriously injured, but each of you agreed that an unlawful and dangerous assault - dangerous in the sense that a reasonable person in the position of each of you would have realised that it would expose Mr Warrington to an appreciable risk of serious injury - would be carried out on Mr Warrington and that such an assault took place and resulted in his death. The offence of manslaughter carries a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment.
2. The sentences to be imposed may only be for the purposes of punishing each of you to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances, deterring you or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar character, establishing conditions within which your rehabilitation may be facilitated, manifesting the denunciation by the Court of the type of conduct in which you have engaged, and protecting the community.[3] I must have regard to the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment prescribed for the offence of manslaughter, current sentencing practices, the nature and gravity of the offence, your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence, the impact of the offence on the victim, your personal circumstances and the personal circumstances of the victim, your previous character, the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors concerning you or any other relevant circumstances, and, in the case of Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt, your plea of guilty and the stage of the proceedings at which you indicated an intention to plead guilty.[4] My task is to arrive at a sentence that is just following an instinctive synthesis of all these features, and must not be more severe than is necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.[5]
3. Manslaughter is a serious offence because it involves the death of a person. This is a serious example of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act because:

(a) there was a deliberate plan to inflict an unlawful and dangerous act rather than the unlawful and dangerous act being inflicted in the heat of the moment;

(b) the infliction of the unlawful and dangerous act or acts was prolonged, involved the use of weapons and took place inside the house where Mr Warrington was living at the time;

(c) the unlawful and dangerous act was inflicted on Mr Warrington at a time when he was, and was expected to be, vulnerable and unable to defend himself; and

(d) there were deliberate attempts to conceal Mr Warrington's death, including the mistreatment and disposal of his body.

1. No victim impact statements were filed. Nonetheless, a man has been killed, and violence of the type that was engaged in has no place in our society and warrants punishment and condemnation by the Court. General deterrence and the need to denounce your conduct are weighty considerations in the sentencing of each of you. The community must appreciate that entering to agreements pursuant to which persons are to be and then are assaulted, if that results in their death, is likely to result in a substantial period of imprisonment.

F The findings and considerations relevant to Ms McIver

1. Ms McIver, I now turn to consider your particular situation.
2. As I said before, the findings that I now make are relevant to the sentence to be imposed on you, based on the material that is admissible against and for you, but may not be findings that apply also when I come to consider the sentences to be imposed on Mr Wyatt and Mr Dalton.
3. You contend, in summary, that:

(a) the physical violence on Mr Warrington was inflicted by Mr Wyatt, not by you, and went beyond what any agreement had anticipated. Associated with this, you say that you were afraid of Mr Wyatt and participated out of fear; and

(b) by reason of your background and mental health, your mental state was such that you were susceptible to Mr Wyatt's influence.

1. You are now 39 years old. You had a markedly deprived childhood and adolescence. I accept the evidence given by the psychiatrist you called, Dr Rajan Darjee, as to your background and mental state. You were born to a teenage mother, who was drug-addicted and a sex worker and was not in a position properly to care for you and was not loving. She died of an overdose when you were sixteen. Child Protection were involved and you were placed in foster care and then with your father when you were aged five. Your father was also addicted to drugs. Further, he regularly sexually assaulted you throughout your period of time with him. On three occasions, you became pregnant by him and had abortions. Shortly before your 16th birthday you ran away and lived on the streets. You developed a heroin habit and worked as a stripper and then also as a sex worker. For ten years you were in a relationship with a man, with whom, in 2011, you had your daughter. The two of you sold drugs. He became violent and you obtained intervention orders and moved out. As is not uncommon for people in relationships beset by family violence, you struggled to terminate that relationship. Again, Child Protection became involved and removed your daughter. Since 2022, the father of your daughter has been in prison and since 2023 your daughter has been living with your sister in New South Wales.
2. You continued to abuse drugs, including methylamphetamine, and you continued to engage in sex work and you continued a pattern of dysfunctional and violent relationships.
3. Dr Darjee explained that, as a consequence of the deprivations and mistreatment during your childhood, you suffer from post-traumatic symptoms and a 'damaged personality development'; you meet the criteria for borderline personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, and present with schizoid, masochistic and melancholic personality patterns. You have acquired a brain injury because of your prolonged substance abuse. Your IQ, when measured in April this year, was 'extremely low' at 68. Your personality issues have led you to form relationships, mirroring those from your childhood, with men who are physically and psychologically abusive and controlling; it is in those types of relationships that you feel comfortable. For the purposes of your sentence, I accept that Mr Wyatt fell into this category. You adopt a passive and submissive role in these relationships and I accept that you did so in your relationship with him. I also accept the evidence of the neuropsychologist, Ms Laura Scott, that you have significant cognitive impairments and a low level of intellectual functioning resulting from genetic vulnerabilities, your early development and your years of heavy drug use that make it difficult for you to carefully think through the consequences of your decisions.
4. For the purposes of your sentence, I accept that Mr Wyatt was the primary instigator in the offending and that it was he who inflicted the injuries that resulted in Mr Warrington's death and the cuts to Mr Warrington's body after his death, and that he did so in an elevated state and sadistic rage contributed to by his consumption of methylamphetamine and that his behaviour towards Mr Warrington went beyond even the dangerous level of violence you had anticipated when you agreed to Mr Warrington's being assaulted.
5. I note the Crown's concession and in any event am not satisfied that you participated by 'strangling' Mr Warrington, despite an assertion by Mr Hill that you said that you had done so. The photograph that you took shows Mr Wyatt, not you, holding a hog-tied Mr Warrington up by tape around his neck. I consider it at least as likely that Mr Hill's assertion was a mistaken recollection, or a confused interpretation, by Mr Hill of your informing him that Mr Warrington had been strangled. Notwithstanding that he was not able to say as much when he was in the witness box, and based on his more contemporaneous statement and the nature of the text messages you sent that morning, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were heard by Mr Hill in the morning of 16 July 2023 to say that you wanted to 'torture' Mr Warrington. The fact that you said this, however, does not lead me to conclude that you did engage in torturing Mr Warrington yourself. I consider it more likely that, in accordance with the medical evidence as to your emotional tendencies, you were 'talking big' at that time, echoing the mood exuded by Mr Wyatt.
6. I accept that you were 'highly distressed' by the level of violence that Mr Wyatt inflicted on Mr Warrington. This was corroborated by Mr Dalton's evidence that when he arrived at the Binalong Avenue house you were 'frantic' and 'hyperventilating and freaking out' and that he had to shower you in an attempt to help you to calm down.
7. I am also satisfied, however, that:

(a) your agreement to the assaulting of Mr Warrington was motivated by a desire for 'payback' - to teach Mr Warrington 'a lesson' - and a desire for financial gain - as you anticipated that money and drugs would also be stolen;

(b) when you agreed to the assault on Mr Warrington, you knew that Mr Wyatt would likely engage in real violence in the course of assaulting him - would cause 'hurt' to him. I do not accept the submission that that the level of violence was substantially beyond what you had anticipated, if that submission is intended to convey that you turned your mind to the likely level of violence and concluded that it would be substantially less than what was ultimately inflicted. In light of your impaired mental functioning, but bearing in mind also your knowledge of Mr Wyatt's violent nature and the communications of which you were a part, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you expected a high level of violence was likely or at least possible but also that you did not, in advance, think through the reality and consequences of the infliction of that level of violence; and

(c) you did nothing to assist Mr Warrington to escape or to prevent Mr Wyatt from performing his violent actions. I do not accept as true what you said to the police that you were 'just curled up in a ball' on the kitchen floor because a description that has you removing yourself entirely from the activities in the house is inconsistent with: the CCTV footage of your movements and demeanour outside the house; your taking of the photograph; your participation in the disposal of the body; your movements once you had left the house; and your statement to the police that Mr Wyatt 'made [you] do things [you]'ll never forget'. In that sense, by your presence and acquiescence, you tacitly encouraged the violence against Mr Warrington that led to his death. That is a matter of some significance.

1. I am also satisfied that you participated afterwards in efforts to dispose of his body, although I accept that it was Mr Wyatt and not you who attempted to cut off Mr Warrington's legs.
2. I am not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that you positively agreed to the burning down of the house. Mr Dierickx heard you complain to Mr Wyatt, after the event, that he had burned down your house, and that is plausible. I accept that the house was burnt down at Mr Wyatt's initiative. Again, however, I am satisfied that you did nothing to prevent it and, indeed, you were shown on CCTV removing some items from the house before it was set alight.
3. There are at least three reasons for which you did nothing to help Mr Warrington and passively participated in or acquiesced to what was being done to him (and to the burning down of the house). The first is that you were, during the time of the offending, scared of Mr Wyatt and what he might do including to you if you were to present as an obstacle to him. I accept that he was threatening and physically violent towards you and caused the facial bruising with which you presented upon your arrest. The second is that you were - in your own words - 'smashed by ice' and, I conclude, in a dysregulated state. The third is that, as a result of your personality structure stemming from your deprived background, to which I have referred, the internal boundary that a healthy person appreciates between their own personhood and others has somewhat broken down with the result that you, in Dr Darjee's words, 'absorb the emotional state that's going on around' you - in this case, the state of heightened violence. I accept Dr Darjee's evidence that you participated, consistently with this condition, largely 'out of fear or some sort of pathological attachment' to Mr Wyatt and that this gave you 'little ability or agency to disengage'.
4. This aspect of your mental condition - your tendency to absorb (in the sense of adopt) the emotional state of those around you - is also a reason for which you entered into the agreement to take revenge on Mr Warrington in the first place after he allowed you to take responsibility for his drugs: Mr Dalton and Mr Wyatt expressed their disdain for that conduct, and you took on and internalised their senses of outrage and anger and were happy to 'go along' with the planning for a serious assault on him.
5. You have no history of violent criminal offences.
6. Your deprived background and your associated mental condition that resulted in impairment of your mental functioning go a considerable way towards explaining your offending, and moderate the level of your moral culpability for it[6] and the extent to which you are a suitable vehicle for general deterrence.[7] But those factors did not remove your ability to tell right from wrong and by no means excuse your offending.
7. I accept that your deprived background and mental condition mean that you will find time in prison more burdensome than for someone without that background or that condition. I also accept that, because you are more at risk of passive participation in violence initiated by others, rather than initiating violence yourself, the need to protect the community is less than it would otherwise be.
8. I have regard to your plea of guilty, which you offered in late April 2025. I do not consider that it was a particularly early plea, as it took place after the committal, and I do not see how the committal was 'necessary' to clarify or resolve issues such that an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter could not have been made before the committal. Equally, I do not accept that the plea was made in circumstances where the case against you, for manslaughter, was weak, in light of the evidence that implicated you in the agreement which led to the assaults that led to Mr Warrington's death and the difficulties you would have faced in establishing that you entered into that agreement under duress and also in light of s 322O(3) of the Crimes Act 1958 which provides that the defence of duress does not apply if the threat is made by someone with whom you are voluntarily associating for the purpose of carrying out violent conduct. You are, however, entitled to a discount for the plea's utilitarian benefit because it has removed the need for what would likely have been a separate trial.
9. I accept that you found the events of that weekend traumatic and that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions.
10. Whilst in custody, you have seen the psychologist Dr Ninawa Butrus more than 50 times. Dr Butrus has said, and I accept, that you are free of illicit substances in prison and have engaged well with her treatment and other available programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. You have also engaged with some work programs and have had regular contact with your sister. I accept that you are motivated by a desire to resume, or to develop, a positive relationship with your daughter. I consider that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, notwithstanding your apparently-entrenched and long-term emotional and behavioural problems. Nonetheless, the problems you have experienced will not be easy for you to overcome and specific deterrence remains a sentencing consideration that must be given some weight.
11. Your counsel has referred me to three sentencing decisions that involved the sentence of women who agreed to a violent assault that resulted in death, one of which, R v Bos[8], was said to be genuinely comparative. In R v Bos, Ms Bos entered into an agreement with another man for that man to 'bash' her boyfriend badly enough to cause him to leave town. The assault committed, which was very violent, went beyond what had been agreed and resulted in the victim's death. Ms Bos was sentenced to six years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and three months. There were, however, some differences that could explain a lesser sentence being imposed on Ms Bos than on you: Ms Bos was not present when the assault was committed and so in no way participated in it; she had good reason to believe that serious violence would not be used;[9] the victim had been exercising 'coercive control' over her including by, for example, taking videos of sexual encounters with her and sending them to others and had 'engendered fear' in her and the sentencing judge accepted that she believed that he would 'not stop unless something drastic was done' and she was 'desperate';[10] her plea of guilty was entered in circumstances where she had a real prospect of not being convicted and so her plea was to be given particular weight;[11] and the plea was entitled to additional utilitarian value because it was entered during the strain on the criminal justice system brought about by the COVID pandemic.[12] Ultimately, of course, each set of facts and circumstances is different but I have taken into account the cases referred to me by your counsel.
12. I will formally pronounce my sentence after I have set out considerations relevant to the other accused.

G The findings and considerations relevant to Mr Wyatt

1. Mr Wyatt, I now turn to consider your particular situation.
2. As I said before, the findings that I now make are relevant to the sentence to be imposed on you, based on the material that is admissible against and for you, but may not be findings that apply also when I consider the sentences to be imposed on Ms McIver or Mr Dalton.
3. You first met Ms McIver only a matter of weeks or months prior to Mr Warrington's death. You had first met Mr Warrington about ten years earlier: you used to purchase drugs from him. But you hadn't spoken to him for a couple of years.
4. Although I am not in a position to determine what exactly happened at the Binalong Avenue house that caused Mr Warrington's death, I am satisfied that, in a drug-fuelled state:

(a) you, alone or with Ms McIver, savagely beat Mr Warrington inflicting blunt force trauma to his head and neck with a baton;

(b) you tied up Mr Warrington and held him up by tape around his neck;

(c) you, alone or with Ms McIver, inflicted cuts to Mr Warrington's elbows;

(d) you, alone or with Ms McIver, after Mr Warrington was dead, inflicted further cuts to his arms and back;

(e) you then cut off Mr Warrington's finger, which you wrapped in gladwrap (or a freezer bag) and kept as a trophy;

(f) you, alone or with Ms McIver, after Mr Warrington was dead, attempted to cut off his legs to dispose of his body;

(g) you, with Ms McIver's assistance, disposed of Mr Warrington's body by taking it in a wheelie bin and then dumping it by some railway tracks;

(h) you, alone or with Ms McIver, set fire to the Binalong Avenue house in a desire to destroy evidence that might be used against you; and

(i) you later showed Mr Warrington's finger to Ms Gilligan, Mr Dierickx and Mr Hill at the Seaford residence and sought to justify your killing of Mr Warrington by asserting that he was a paedophile. At that stage, some two days after Mr Warrington had died, you were boasting of your violent actions and showed no remorse whatsoever that you had caused Mr Warrington's death.

1. These findings are justified including by the findings and photographs of the blood and bruising on Mr Warrington's face, the evidence of the cuts on his body, the photographs of you standing over and holding up Mr Warrington by tape around his neck taken by Ms McIver, the finding of your DNA profile along with the DNA profile of Mr Warrington on a baton found at the scene, your statement to Mr Dierickx that 'Your baton works' and that 'I bashed a guy', your admission to police that you headbutted Mr Warrington and that you 'just hit - kept hitting him', and the statements provided by Ms Gilligan, Mr Dierickx and Mr Hill. I have not relied on the oral evidence they gave in the trial against Mr Dalton.
2. I am unable to determine whether you also forcibly administered drugs to Mr Warrington against his will, because the drugs found in the autopsy may have been voluntarily taken by him. I therefore sentence you on the basis that you did not do this.
3. I do not accept an assertion made by you to the police that you set fire to the house at Ms McIver's direction. I am satisfied that you set fire to the house, consistently with your attempts earlier to hide the body, in an attempt to destroy or conceal any evidence that might trace the deadly assault back to you.
4. As well as asserting at the Seaford house that you had 'taken out' a paedophile, you spoke to police following your arrest on 21 July 2023 and told them that Mr Warrington had been planning to 'take' Ms McIver's daughter, that you had found photographs of Ms McIver's daughter in Mr Warrington's bag, and that Mr Warrington had a history of drugging and raping women. There is no evidence before me to suggest there is any truth to these assertions. I do not accept that your assault on Mr Warrington was because you thought he was a paedophile or because he drugged and raped women. There was no reference to those as being reasons in your texts or other communications made prior to your attending the Binalong Avenue house for the purpose of assaulting him. Your assertion, made to the police, that Mr Warrington was known to drug and to rape women sits uneasily with your statement, also made to the police, that you in fact asked Mr Warrington to check up on Ms McIver and make sure that she was OK. I consider that the motive, in accordance with the various text messages sent, was because you decided he needed to be taught a lesson for letting Ms McIver take the blame for the drugs found on the premises.
5. Nor do I accept that Mr Warrington initiated the violence that day, which is what you told the police. That runs contrary to your plan to assault him, and you had no bruises or injuries to your body other than to your knuckles, consistent with your hitting him.
6. Again, at that stage, some five days after you had caused Mr Warrington's death, you still showed no remorse whatsoever but instead continued to describe Mr Warrington as 'scum' and a 'cockroach' and sought to justify your killing of him. It is, however, to your credit that you did then take the police to Mr Warrington's body. You did that because, I accept, you did not want a child finding the cut-up body.
7. You are now 38 years old. You are a citizen of New Zealand but have lived in Australia since 2004 when you turned 17 years old. You had an alcoholic and violent father who assaulted you. You were sexually abused by your mother's cousin when you were seven and, despite disclosing this to your parents, no action was taken which you found confusing and destabilising. You started taking cannabis when you were 12 and by the time you were 13 you were experimenting with other drugs. You left home when you were 13 to live with a family friend and then on a farm where you also worked. You disengaged from school. When you were about 15, you were sexually assaulted by the farm manager. While still in New Zealand, you were a victim of a group assault in which you sustained head trauma. By the age of 17, you were living in Australia and engaged in heavy drug use. You had a number of short-term casual jobs that ended due to your mental health issues, housing instability or substance abuse.
8. In about 2011, you entered a relatively-functional relationship with a woman with whom you had three children who are now aged approximately 14, 13 and 11. Unfortunately, you relapsed into drug taking behaviour and left that household for Queensland where you remained for more than three years before returning to Melbourne. At some point, you obtained vocational training in asbestos removal and a truck licence and worked productively in that area for some years until a 'friend' stole your Jeep and other belongings. At some stage you were again assaulted and struck on the head with a star picket resulting in hospitalisation with various fractures. Throughout your life, you have experienced psychological difficulties including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, flashbacks, nightmares and dissociative reactions and have twice attempted suicide.
9. You have been assessed for the purpose of this sentence by the psychologist Ms Gina Cidoni and in November 2014 you were assessed, for the purposes of an earlier plea, by the neuropsychologist Ms Linda Williamson. Ms Williamson found that in 2006 you had suffered from a moderate traumatic brain injury but that your 'general intellectual functioning' was 'within the Average range' and that you 'did not demonstrate significant deficits in [your] higher level, executive functions that would impact on [your] reasoning processes and judgement'. Ms Cidoni found in 2025 that your 'overall personality' aligns with 'the psychological consequences of prolonged developmental trauma, disrupted attachment, and chronic dysregulation'. She diagnosed a major depressive disorder, a post-traumatic stress disorder, a severe substance use disorder, and ADHD.
10. I accept that your psychological state is such that imprisonment will place a greater burden on you than someone without those problems.[13] I also accept that you have had a deprived background such that your moral culpability is less than it otherwise would be.[14] I accept that you have a drug problem and that this is a partial explanation for your conduct, but I do not consider that you otherwise have a mental illness that moderates the level of your moral culpability.
11. You have a relevant criminal history but one not one marked by seriously violent conduct or that is particularly extensive. In January 2011, you were given a community based order for possessing a controlled weapon without excuse, going equipped to steal and attempted theft. The conditions of that order included that you undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. In March 2011, you were given another community based order for traffic offences. The order, again, included a condition that you undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. In December 2014, you received a suspended sentence of imprisonment for cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis. Then, in December 2015, you were given another suspended sentence for burglary and criminal damage. In February 2018, you were fined for possessing drugs and assaulting or obstructing a police officer in Rockhampton in Queensland. As far as I am aware, you were not found guilty of any criminal conduct in the five years between then and the manslaughter of Mr Warrington.
12. You are entitled to a utilitarian discount for your plea of guilty, which you offered after the committal, because it has removed the need for what likely would have been a separate trial. As with Ms McIver, I do not consider it otherwise to have been a particularly early plea. I do not accept that the plea was made in circumstances where the evidence that your assaults were a substantial or significant cause of Mr Warrington's death was weak. Notwithstanding that the doctors could not identify a precise cause of death, a jury would likely have concluded that your serious assaults on him - where he was 'bashed' and his body was cut before his death - were causally linked to his death.
13. You have a supportive family. Your brother has written saying that you were unwell at the time of the offending and are naturally a caring and empathetic person. Your parents have written saying that you still have their support. They all say you have expressed genuine remorse and demonstrated a desire to change and not to return to your prior lifestyle. The mother of your children has written saying that you are caring and dedicated to your children and that since you have been in prison you have been 'a different Dylan'. One of your old employers has written to say that you were an extremely hard worker and polite to customers. While on remand, you have managed to abstain from taking illicit substances and have completed four two-hour training modules, four programs directed at your substance abuse, and have commenced some general education and engineering training courses. I accept that you have attempted to use your time in custody wisely, and that your offending is connected with your drug use and associated lifestyle.
14. The question of remorse is not straightforward. As I said earlier, you showed absolutely no remorse or regret in the period immediately after your offending. I do not consider that your plea to manslaughter is, in the circumstances, indicative of any real remorse rather than a recognition of the fact that you had engaged in criminal conduct that had caused Mr Warrington's death. That said, I accept that you are, now, remorseful.
15. Your prospects of rehabilitation depend on whether you are able to remain clean of illicit substances and, in light of your history, remain guarded. I consider that specific deterrence remains a significant sentencing consideration.
16. There is a risk that you will be deported to New Zealand on your release. I accept that this prospect will weigh heavily on you because it would remove you from your children and family and in this way will make your imprisonment more burdensome.[15] In the absence of specific evidence, I am not prepared to assume that you will be deported such that you will be subject to extra-curial punishment.
17. Your counsel has referred me to some other sentences that bear some common features with your situation, and I have had regard to those sentences. As noted earlier, however, no two cases are alike.

H The findings and considerations relevant to Mr Dalton

1. Mr Dalton, I now turn to consider your particular situation.
2. You were not present at the house when Mr Warrington suffered the assaults that resulted in his death, and I accept that you did not inflict any injuries yourself.
3. However, you were an integral part of the plan to have him assaulted and you do not escape moral responsibility for what occurred at the Binalong Avenue house before you arrived. As the text messages and phone calls to which I have already referred make clear:

(a) you participated in phone calls during which it was anticipated that real violence would be inflicted on Mr Warrington;

(b) the tone of your messages was encouraging of the infliction of real violence on Mr Warrington - such as, for example, encouraging them to 'smash the cunt';

(c) you told them where a taser could be found, presumably so that it could be used in the assault;

(d) you kept in touch with Mr Warrington to make sure that he was present when Ms McIver and Mr Wyatt arrived so that they could carry out the plan to assault him - and I am prepared to assume said nothing to warn him of what was intended, indeed you sent a text message at 5.03am to Mr Wyatt saying that 'he's got no idea of what's planned';

(e) you encouraged the endeavour by assuring Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver that Mr Warrington would not be in a position to defend himself; and

(f) you arranged for Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver's transport to the Binalong Avenue house so that they could carry out the plan to assault Mr Warrington.

1. You are now 54 years old. You did not have a deprived upbringing, although your father imposed physical discipline, and you do not have a mental illness, such that your moral culpability for your offending is reduced. You finished year 12 before going on to complete qualifications as an electrician. You have had some serious relationships and have two children who are in their twenties, although you later found out that you were not the father of one of them. It seems you had undiagnosed ADHD and you started to use cannabis when you were 18 and amphetamines in your early twenties and heroin in your mid-twenties. After some ten years on methadone, you started to use methamphetamine in your early forties. You have had stable employment. You have a criminal record but it is limited to drug and driving offences.
2. Your motive for entering into the agreement is somewhat unclear, save that you felt that Mr Warrington had done the wrong thing by Ms McIver and you anticipated, I am satisfied, obtaining some of Mr Warrington's drugs or money.
3. I accept that you were distressed when you arrived at the Binalong Avenue house and were confronted by the reality of Mr Warrington's death and I accept (for the purpose of sentencing you) that Mr Wyatt was acting in an aggressive and frightening manner. But you showed no remorse. Before you had arrived, you suggested that an attempt be made to convey the impression that Mr Warrington had killed himself. Then, in the following days, you suggested how his disability support pension could be stolen.
4. Further, I am satisfied that you took steps to try to avoid being called to account for your role in this crime. You disabled (or attempted to disable) Mr Warrington's Android account to reduce, I am satisfied, the prospect of his death being adequately investigated. You then called Mr Warrington's phone (even though you knew he was dead) and left a voicemail and then sent a message to Mr Wyatt that was intended to suggest to anyone who might later read it that Mr Warrington might have killed himself. Finally, I am satisfied that you made the call to Crime Stoppers because you expected that the police would find out that you had called Mr Warrington shortly before his death, and you wanted to put out the false narrative, in an apparently innocent way, that you had nothing to do with the assault on him.
5. As noted, I accept that you did not intend that Mr Warrington be killed, and that you found the scene at the house confronting when you arrived there. I accept that you played no part in the attempted dismemberment of and disposal of Mr Warrington's body, or the burning down of the house. I accept that aspects of the assault on Mr Warrington differed from what you had anticipated - in particular the 'hog-tying' shown in the photograph and the infliction of the cuts to his body while he was alive that indicate that he was subjected to prolonged and terrifying violence. In this sense, the assault went beyond what had been agreed. But I am satisfied that you had nonetheless agreed to, and anticipated, that a serious assault would be inflicted, such as the facial bashing that was performed. Your text messages compel that conclusion. I will not repeat them but they establish, for example, that you anticipated that Mr Warrington would be 'smashed' and then sufficiently 'juiced' so that he would have no memory of what happened.
6. In circumstances where no particular identifiable injury was inflicted that was a cause of death, it is overly simplistic to contend, as you did, that some discrete action took place outside the agreement that Mr Warrington be 'smashed' or 'bashed' or 'juiced up' or 'hurt' that resulted in Mr Warrington's death.
7. You gave evidence to the effect that you were so frightened by Mr Wyatt's behaviour when you arrived at the house that night that you failed to leave, or indeed left and returned, and sent supportive and congratulatory texts to him, out of a fear that he might otherwise harm you. CCTV footage was shown of you calmly shaking him by the hand as you left the house, and you said that that footage was misleading to the extent that it suggested that you were not afraid at that time. I accept that you were intimidated by Mr Wyatt and afraid for your own safety when you arrived at the house, and so place little weight on the fact that you remained at the house for as long as you did and did not immediately, for example, notify the authorities of what had happened. That, however, cannot account for your later suggestion that Mr Wyatt steal Mr Warrington's disability support pension or the false narrative you later sought to erect; I accept that you were probably taken aback by Mr Warrington's death and were not thinking reflectively, but I do not accept that the encouraging and supportive text messages you sent after the killing were sent by you out of a fear that Mr Wyatt might otherwise hurt you.
8. Your counsel emphasised that you did not yourself engage in any of the violence that resulted in Mr Warrington's death and also that the acts of violence that resulted in Mr Warrington's death went beyond that to which you had agreed. The psychologist who examined you on 10 July 2025, Mr Warren Simmons, noted your description that the situation had 'escalated out of control when you were not present' and that you 'struggle' with your 'level of responsibility' because of your feeling that the agreement was 'never meant' to 'result in the behaviour that actually occurred'.
9. I accept that the fact that you did not yourself assault Mr Warrington is a significant factor that justifies, in the circumstances of this case, a lesser sentence than would be warranted had you participated in the actual acts of violence. I also accept that the assaults were more prolonged and frightening than you had anticipated. But this point may not be taken too far - you agreed to and provided support for the commission of an unlawful and dangerous act - an act that would expose Mr Warrington to an appreciable risk of serious injury - by a person whom you hardly knew but whom you knew may well act with extreme violence (who had indicated that he would, for example, throw acid in Mr Warrington's face and had spoken of tying him up and torturing him) and whom by your text messages you encouraged to inflict violence. You do not escape moral culpability for what then occurred just because you did not anticipate the full extent of the violence that was committed or the resultant death.
10. Although I accept, of course, that you did not intend for Mr Warrington to die, and I accept that you now regret your involvement in the agreement for his assault and were and are distressed by the fact of Mr Warrington's death, I do not consider that you have accepted responsibility or are truly remorseful for the role you played in his death by agreeing to, and indeed encouraging, his being assaulted.
11. That said, you have a history of stable employment and stable long-term relationships. In light of your overall history, I accept the opinion of Mr Simmons that you have 'limited antisocial personality traits'. Further, you have completed various courses while on remand which address, among other issues, 'how to positively manage conflict' and how to reintegrate into the community in a 'prosocial' way. On balance, I consider that you have good prospects for rehabilitation.
12. You have spent your time in custody in protection. I accept that you may continue to do so for a substantial time into the future, and that this will make your time in custody more onerous than would otherwise be the case.
13. Unlike Mr Wyatt and Ms McIver, you do not receive a discount for pleading guilty.

1. None of you intended that Mr Warrington would die. But you all agreed that he would be violently assaulted, he was violently assaulted, and he did die. Each of you is responsible for that death and is guilty of the crime of manslaughter. General deterrence and the need to mark the Court's denunciation of your conduct are important sentencing considerations.
2. It is necessary that there be parity between the three of you. The degree of your involvement in the physical actions that led to his death is just one of the sentencing considerations. But achieving parity is not straightforward where you are each being sentenced on different factual bases.
3. Mr Wyatt, you are being sentenced on the basis that you, albeit potentially with Ms McIver, actually inflicted the physical injuries that resulted in Mr Warrington's death and were instrumental in the subsequent attempted dismemberment and disposal of the body. Ms McIver, you are being sentenced on the basis that you did not inflict the injuries that resulted in Mr Warrington's death and were afraid of Mr Wyatt at the time but acquiesced, for complex reasons, in his actions and participated, out of fear, in the disposal of Mr Warrington's body. Mr Dalton, you are being sentenced on the basis that you did not arrive at the house until after Mr Warrington was already dead and did not participate in the dismemberment or disposal of his body, but agreed to and encouraged in advance the infliction of real violence, as well as providing logistical support. Ultimately, the sentences imposed are arrived at by an instinctive synthesis of all the matters I have referred to, including the role that each person played and their background, degree of remorse, rehabilitation potential, and need for specific deterrence.
4. Would you all please stand.
5. Ms McIver, you are convicted of the manslaughter of Mr Matthew Warrington and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served at least five years of this sentence. But for your plea of guilty, and the effect that a plea of not guilty would likely have had on my assessment of the degree of your remorse, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of nine years. I declare that you have served a total of 883 days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.
6. Mr Wyatt, you are convicted of the manslaughter of Mr Matthew Warrington and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served at least eight years and six months of this sentence. But for your plea of guilty, and the effect that a plea of not guilty would likely have had on my assessment of the degree of your remorse, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 14 years. I declare that you have served a total of 852[16] days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.
7. Mr Dalton, you are convicted of the manslaughter of Mr Matthew Warrington and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served at least six years of this sentence. I declare that you have served a total of 829 days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.

[1] See, for example, Ulutui v The Queen [2012] VSCA 301; Contos v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 92.

[2] See Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) Pt 5.6.

[3] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 5(1).

[4] Ibid s 5(2).

[5] Ibid s 5(3).

[6] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[7] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269.

[8] [2023] VSC 68.

[13] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269.

[14] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[15] Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288, 294 [25].

[16] I am told that you, Mr Wyatt, were sentenced for an unrelated matter on 15 April 2025 to a term of 30 days' imprisonment, which was declared as time served and is therefore no longer available as pre-sentence detention for the instant offending.