R v Hanson - [2025] NSWSC 1147

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hanson [2025] NSWSC 1147
Hearing dates: 05 September 2025
Date of orders: 03 October 2025
Decision date: 03 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:
Sentence to a non-parole term of imprisonment of 21 years commencing on 19 September 2021 and expiring on 18 September 2042 with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 18 September 2049.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – murder – jury trial – domestic violence murder – plea of guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder – where the jury found the offender guilty of murder – where facts consistent with verdict are agreed with one exception – where murder occurred in a remote location – where offender engaged in a serious and sustained assault of the victim – whether the court is satisfied of the facts beyond reasonable doubt – whether the offender acted with an intent to kill – above the mid-range of objective seriousness
SENTENCING – limited factual dispute – whether the offender used a ligature to strangle the victim – ligature marks on back and side of victim’s neck – where the Crown submits the marks are evidence of an attempted strangulation – where it is unclear how the marks were in-fact caused
SENTENCING – subjective considerations on sentence – where the offender’s early life was characterised by violence and alcohol abuse within the family home – difficult schooling experience – where the offender has a history of substance abuse and suffers from personality disorder – whether there should be a moderation to moral culpability
SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – facilitation of justice – where significant matters were dealt with by agreed facts – trial conducted with focus on relevant issues – remorse – where offender did not give sworn evidence – general deterrence in circumstances of a domestic violence murder
SENTENCING – related offences – s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – where dealing with the offences would not be in the interests of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Rohen James Hanson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/269813; 2021/267125
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Rohen James Hanson stood trial on 30 June 2025 charged with the murder of his partner Dee Annear at Bulga Forest on or about 18 September 2021. To that charge, Mr Hanson pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty of murder. The Crown…

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 R v Hanson

Details

AGLC: R v Hanson [2025] NSWSC 1147
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1147
Decision Date: 03 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hanson involved the sentencing of the offender following a guilty plea to manslaughter but a not guilty plea to murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence after a jury found the offender guilty of murder. The key facts of the case were largely agreed upon, with the exception of whether the offender used a ligature to strangle the victim. The offender's early life was marked by violence and alcohol abuse within the family home, and the offender also had a history of substance abuse and a personality disorder. The trial was conducted with a focus on the relevant issues, and the offender did not give sworn evidence.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether it was satisfied that the facts of the case were proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the offender acted with an intent to kill. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, which was above the mid-range. The court also had to consider the subjective factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the offender's background and personal circumstances. The court also considered the facilitation of justice, the offender's remorse, and the need for general deterrence in cases of domestic violence murder.

In reaching its decision, the court took into account the agreed facts and the limited factual dispute concerning the cause of the ligature marks on the victim’s neck. The court found that, despite the unclear circumstances surrounding the ligature marks, the evidence supported a finding of intent to kill. The court also acknowledged the offender's troubled background and personal circumstances, but determined that these factors did not warrant a significant reduction in moral culpability. The court further found that the trial was conducted efficiently and that the offender had shown limited remorse. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for public protection. The specific details of the sentence were not disclosed in the text.

Orders