DPP v Rolfe - [2008] VSC 528

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1754 of 2008

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BERNARD WILLIAM ROLFE

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 November 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Rolfe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 528

---

Criminal law and procedure – manslaughter by suicide pact – plea of guilty – accused husband 81 years of age – deceased wife 85 years of age – considerations applicable – s.6B Crimes Act 1958 – wholly suspended sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr C Beale	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Rochford	Victoria Legal Aid

-----

PREFACE

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Rolfe, you have pleaded guilty before me to the manslaughter by suicide pact of your wife Janetta Rolfe, to whom you had been married happily for 55 years and who you loved, at Inverloch on 16 November 2007. I propose to release you immediately, having imposed upon you a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment for two years. In a few minutes I shall state to you the effect of that wholly suspended sentence. You may remain seated while I state my reasons for sentence. Then, this afternoon, you will be free to return to your present residence at Inverloch.

Mr Rolfe, stating the reasons for sentence will take a little less than half an hour. Because courts are open, it is important to state openly the reasons for sentences. If you are finding it too difficult, do tell me and we will take a break. If you can manage it, it is best that we do and conclude it.

THE OFFENCE

The relevant facts of the offence may be stated as follows, taken from the depositional material and the helpful opening of the learned prosecutor, Mr Beale.

On 17 November 2007, at about 9.30am, Community Care Worker Gayle Davis, who had been assisting you and your wife for some months, attended your home at 13 Venus Street, Inverloch. From outside, she noticed a very strong smell of gas. There was no response to her knocking. The police were contacted and shortly afterwards firefighters arrived and entered the house. They found you and your wife in the master bedroom lying on the bed under a doona and blankets. There was a gas bottle on the floor beside the bed with a short hose leading into the bed under the doona. The hose ran over your left hip and was nestled under your arm. You appeared to be hugging your wife who was facing towards you. Your wife was dead and you were unconscious.

Firefighter Higgins turned off the gas bottle and opened a window. Paramedics administered oxygen to you. You then regained consciousness and were immediately taken to hospital by ambulance. As you were being taken to hospital, you said “leave me alone, let me go”.

The last known person to see your…

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 Rolfe

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Rolfe [2008] VSC 528
Case: [2008] VSC 528
Decision Date: 28 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) versus Rolfe involved a dispute regarding the sentencing of an elderly man who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by suicide pact. The defendant, Rolfe, was 81 years old at the time of the offence, while his deceased wife was 85 years old. The matter was heard and determined in a relevant court under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate for Rolfe, given the unique circumstances of the case, including the age of both parties and the nature of the offence.

The court needed to consider various factors in determining the appropriate sentence for Rolfe. These included the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the accused, the age and health of the parties involved, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. Under section 6B of the Crimes Act 1958, the court was required to weigh these considerations carefully in light of the specific facts of the case. In reaching its decision, the court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and reflected the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court recognised the unique circumstances of the case, particularly the ages of the parties involved and the nature of the offence. The court found that, while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors warranted a wholly suspended sentence. The court determined that imposing a wholly suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the age and health of Rolfe, as well as the circumstances of the suicide pact. The court concluded that this sentence balanced the need for justice with the principles of mercy and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Rolfe be sentenced to a wholly suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with the sentence being subject to any relevant conditions the court deemed appropriate. The court’s decision reflects the careful consideration of the unique circumstances and statutory provisions in cases involving manslaughter by suicide pact.

Orders