Legal Research
Cases
Lee v The King

Lee v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 258 31 October 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0163

RODNEY LEE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 October 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 258
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lee [2023] VSC 437 (Elliott J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder – Shotgun killing of two – Individual sentences of 22 years’ imprisonment on two charges of murder – Eight years’ cumulation — Total effective sentence 30 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period 24 years – Whether manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J O’Connor and Ms A Renieris
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams and Ms B Goding
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
TAYLOR JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

On 13 January 2022, the applicant, then aged 73 years,0F[1] took the lives of two of his neighbours, Tibor Laszlo and Saumoto Gasio, by shooting them with a single barrel shotgun. He pleaded guilty to their murders before a judge of the Supreme Court on 17 February 2023.
[1]His date of birth is 6 January 1949.
Following a plea conducted on 15 May 2023, the judge sentenced the applicant on 31 July 2023 to be imprisoned for 22 years on each of two charges of murder,1F[2] and ordered eight years’ cumulation between the sentences. The total effective sentence was thus 30 years’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of 24 years.2F[3]
[2]By s 3(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; and by s 3(2)(b), the standard sentence is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the judge declared that, but for the pleas of guilty, he would have sentenced the applicant to 40 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 32 years.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the total effective sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
There is no substance in that contention. We consider that leave to appeal must be refused. Our reasons follow.

The offending

The applicant moved into a unit complex in Mordialloc in October 2006. Among other things, he took an active role in maintaining the communal areas of the complex and he planted and maintained a communal garden. The applicant told police that he ‘put everything’ into the garden, which was his pride and joy.
Unhappily, the applicant’s relationships with other residents of the complex began to deteriorate around 2020. He complained about residents’ music, and was bothered by residents drinking alcohol in communal areas. The applicant took exception to other residents’ unwillingness to assist with gardening and taking out the bins. He also had repeated confrontations with other residents when they turned off a tap connected to a hose that the applicant would often leave running to water the garden.
On 13 January…

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 Lee v The King

Details

AGLC: Lee v The King [2024] VSCA 258
Case: [2024] VSCA 258
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to two 22-year prison terms for the murder of two individuals with a shotgun. The court ordered these sentences to be served cumulatively, resulting in an effective total sentence of 30 years. The non-parole period was set at 24 years. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The Crown, in turn, argued that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the crimes.

The court considered the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. It emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes, the level of premeditation, and the impact on the victims and their families. The court also weighed the appellant's background, including his age and lack of a criminal history, in determining the appropriate sentence. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court refused the appellant leave to appeal. It found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crimes committed. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of serious offences. The court also noted the appellant's lack of remorse and the potential risk he posed to the community if released early. The refusal of leave to appeal meant that the original sentence would stand.

Orders