Legal Research
Cases
R v Rhodes

R v Rhodes

Case [2017] NSWSC 694 2 June 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Drug-Induced Psychosis

Intellectual Disability

Background & Drug Addiction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rhodes [2017] NSWSC 694
Hearing dates: 12 May 2017
Date of orders: 02 June 2017
Decision date: 02 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 40 years with a non-parole period of 30 years. The sentence will date from 8 September 2015. The non-parole period will expire on 7 September 2045, at which time the offender will first become eligible for release on parole. The total term will expire on 7 September 2055.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – multiple serious offences in single episode of criminality – double murder – murder of a child – drug-induced psychosis – where offender denies any recollection of the offending – consideration of whether offender suffered from a mild intellectual disability – consideration of the offender’s deprived background and drug addiction
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
DL v R [2017] NSWCCA 57
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Fang (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 323
R v Henry (1999) 48 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Maybir (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 166
R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Rhodes (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel: T. Thorpe (Crown)
C. Bruce SC (Offender)
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/264492
Publication restriction: Section 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Judgment

The offender has pleaded guilty to, and is to be sentenced for, a series of offences which occurred on 8 September 2015. On the evening of that day he murdered his mother and a young close-relative in the home they shared with other young relatives; he then assaulted a passer-by, damaging her car; and when police arrived to arrest him he assaulted one of them while resisting arrest. The four crimes of personal violence are separate counts on the indictment on which he was arraigned. The offender has asked that the property damage and other resist arrest offending be taken into account on a Form 1 when he is dealt with on the first murder charge.
The second murder victim was a child of 8 years. Two other residents of the home in and about which the offending occurred were, and are, also children. Both have made family victim impact statements. Both were witnesses to and affected by the extreme violence inflicted upon the murder victims.
Under s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) the names of the children must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects them with these…

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 Rhodes

Details

AGLC: R v Rhodes [2017] NSWSC 694
Case: [2017] NSWSC 694
Decision Date: 02 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rhodes, the defendant stood accused of the brutal murders of two individuals, including the murder of a child. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who claimed no memory of the crimes due to drug-induced psychosis and denied any recollection of the events. Additionally, the defence raised questions about the defendant's intellectual capabilities and the impact of his deprived background and drug addiction on his culpability.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant suffered from a mild intellectual disability, which could have implications for his level of moral culpability. Furthermore, the court had to weigh the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's deprived upbringing, drug addiction, and the lack of memory of the crimes. The prosecution argued for a severe penalty, given the heinous nature of the crimes. The court had to balance these considerations in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the defendant did not suffer from a mild intellectual disability, but acknowledged the significant mitigating factors of the defendant’s deprived background and drug addiction. Despite the severity of the crimes, the court recognised that the defendant had no memory of the events due to his drug-induced psychosis. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the offences and the mitigating circumstances. The final orders emphasised the need for appropriate treatment and rehabilitation for the defendant, given his mental health and background.

Orders