About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Allowing a two-and-a-half-year reduction in the sentence for the man’s guilty plea before the trial, Mr Justice Colton accepted that his actions were initially in self-defence, but went “well beyond that which could be considered self-defence or a fight or for which there was legitimate justification”.

Describing the assault as “serious, sustained, and senseless”, Mr Justice Colton said that he was particularly influenced by witness statements which described him “putting a lot of effort into” jumping on the deceased’s head, and threatening a woman who came to the deceased’s aid saying that he was “in the UDA”.

Background

In September 2016, Richard Dalzell had been in the company of Deborah Ramsey at a bar in Coleraine, where they were involved in an argument with three men, one of whom was Mark Lamont.

Mr Dalzell and Ms Ramsey were described as being very drunk when they left the bar, and when they returned to her house, the three men came in through an unlocked door wearing hooded tops and obscuring their faces. The Court heard that there was a relatively minor altercation between Mr Dalzell and the males who were ushered out of the house, however Mr Lamont returned alone and got into a fight with Mr Dalzell.

Witness statements described Mr Dalzell punching Mr Lamont and causing him to fall to the ground, kicking him while he was on the ground, “repeatedly stamping” on his head, and “putting a lot of effort into” jumping on his head.

When one of the witnesses went outside to phone for an ambulance, Mr Dalzell came to her and said that “she had not seen anything”, to “put her phone away”, and that he was in the UDA.

The witness described how Mr Dalzell walked back from his car to Mr Lamont and stamped on his head before returning to his vehicle and driving off .

The following day, Mr Dalzell presented at Coleraine police Station where he was charged with attempted murder. He submitted that he was acting in self-defence, had no recollection of stamping on Mr Lamont’s head, and said that he panicked and drove home to Newtownards.

Two weeks later, in October 2016, Mr Lamont died of his injuries and Mr Dalzell was re-arrested and charged with murder.

Beyond self-defence

Mr Dalzell pleaded guilty on the basis that his actions were initially in self-defence, but that his actions went beyond what was reasonable or which constituted self-defence. He said that his actions were substantially provoked by Mr Lamont and his associates.

Mr Justice Colton referred to victim impact statements from Mr Lamont’s family, and to psychiatric and pre-sentence reports on Mr Dalzell. The probation report described Mr Dalzell’s unstable upbringing and his 22 previous convictions dating back to 1998. This report expressed the opinion that alcohol misuse and the use of anabolic steroids were relevant factors in the commission of the offence. The probation officer assessed Mr Dalzell as being at medium likelihood of reoffending and someone who is at significant risk of causing serious harm

In applying the Practice Statement issued by Lord Woolf CJ reported at 3 All ER 412, and set out in R v McCandless & Ors NICA 1; Justice Colton said that the Court had to assess the culpability of Mr Dalzell and sentence on the basis of actions which lead to the death of Mr Lamont when he went beyond self-defence.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

Mr Justice Colton said that he was particularly influenced by the independent witnesses who described Mr Dalzell as repeatedly stamping on Mr Lamont’s head, holding onto a concrete pillar while doing so; and further the description of Mr Dalzell jumping on Mr Lamont’s head and “putting a lot of effort into what he was doing”.

The assault was particularly serious, and Justice Colton considered that this was aggravated by the fact that Mr Lamont was “clearly vulnerable a he was lying on the ground when his head was stamped upon repeatedly”.

Although his precise intentions were difficult to assess, “Clearly his actions were sufficient to establish that he had the necessary intent in law for murder. At the very least he intended to cause serious injury to the deceased. Overall in the context of this case I do not consider that there is any significant mitigation in terms of Mr Dalzell’s intent.

Mitigating factors were that his actions were initially:

In the context of what was a “serious, sustained and senseless assault”, Mr Dalzell’s actions went well beyond anything that could be considered self-defence for which there could be legitimate justification, they were “at the most serious end of the spectrum for an over-reaction”.

Mr Justice Colton considered the offence to be further aggravated by the conduct of Mr Dalzell after the assault, where he threatened a civilian witness who came to the aid of Mr Lamont, invoking the name of a paramilitary organisation; leaving the scene immediately and evading the police. Mr Justice Colton said that there was nothing in his conduct in the aftermath to indicate any degree of remorse.

Not persuaded that there should be any significant discount for remorse, Mr Justice Colton concluded that a tariff of 14½ years would be appropriate.

Mr Justice Colton considered that for his plea of guilty, Mr Dalzell was entitled to a reduction of one sixth, reducing the tariff from 14½ years to 12 years.