DPP v Rhodes - [2007] VSC 55

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1463 of 2006

DPP

DALLAS RHODES

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 March 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dallas Rhodes
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 55

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Plea of Guilty to Manslaughter – Prior Convictions

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr Cooper	Ms J Millman Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Toohey	Mr N Kumar Galbally & O’Bryan

---

HER HONOUR:

Dallas Rhodes you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and have admitted prior convictions.

On the morning of the 30 August 2005, as you were leaving for work you went into the bedroom you shared with your wife Michelle to kiss her goodbye. You sat on the edge of the bed and tried to talk to her about the children, and about money that you thought was missing from your bank account. You saw a large kitchen knife on the floor you picked it up and, within a second or two, you stabbed your wife once in the chest. You immediately realised what you had done, you pulled the knife out, threw it on to the floor, and ran out of the room calling out to your children to ring an ambulance. You rang 000 and rendered your wife such assistance as you could. The police attended, as did the ambulance, but by then your wife’s condition was rapidly deteriorating. She went into cardiac arrest but was resuscitated.

At this point, you were arrested on assault charges and conveyed to the Narre Warren police station.

Your wife’s condition continued to deteriorate, she was moved to a MICA unit and arrested for a second time, and was unable to be revived and pronounced dead at 7.40am.

An autopsy conducted later that day determined that the cause of death was a single stab to the wound left chest wall.

Whilst at the house you admitted to your children that you had stabbed their mother and you told them you were sorry. You also told the emergency services operator that you had stabbed your wife, and you admitted your responsibility to the police, both at the house, and at the Narre Warren police station. It was only later that morning after you had enquired as to your wife’s well-being that you were told that she had died. You admitted your responsibility for her death both in conversations with the police officers en route to the homicide squad, and during the course of your record of interview.

You told the police that you did not know why you had picked up the knife, that you weren’t thinking straight at the time, and that you didn’t mean to kill Michelle. You also told the police that there had been a “lot leading up to it” and the that the last three and a half months had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Rhodes

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Rhodes [2007] VSC 55
Case: [2007] VSC 55
Decision Date: 8 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Rhodes came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Rhodes, pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The matter before the court involved the sentencing of Rhodes, who had a history of prior convictions. The prosecution argued for a severe sentence, given the nature of the offence and the defendant's criminal history, while the defence sought a more lenient outcome.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to Rhodes' prior convictions and the overall circumstances of the manslaughter. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offence against the defendant's criminal history and consider whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account. The court also needed to determine whether the sentence should be predominantly punitive or rehabilitative.

The court found that the prior convictions of the defendant were significant and reflected a pattern of violent and criminal behaviour. However, the court also considered the circumstances of the manslaughter, including the defendant's guilty plea and the impact of the crime on the victim's family. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, but it also recognised the importance of rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence of ten years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, reflecting both the need for punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the sentence be served in a facility that would provide appropriate opportunities for rehabilitation, with a view to Rhodes potentially being released on parole after serving the non-parole period, subject to the conditions of parole being met.

Orders