R v Roesner

[2002] VSC 384

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1459 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v

HERMANN DETLEF ADOLF ROESNER

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hermann Detlef Adolf Roesner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 384

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Plea of guilty – Husband bashed sleeping wife brutally with a hammer in the presence of  8 year old son – Many mitigating factors – Imprisonment for 16 years -  Non-parole period of 12½ years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms N Gobbo	Warren Graham & Murphy

HIS HONOUR:

1. Herman Roesner. You have pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife, Antje Roesner, on 6 February 2002.

1. You were married on 10 March 1972.  In May 1992, a daughter was born to you and the deceased, and in February 1994, a son.  In the years after the birth of your son, relations between the two of you deteriorated.  There were communication problems for which each substantially blamed the other.  You spoke less and less to each other.  She asked if you would be prepared to leave.  You said you would not.  She then spoke of leaving you.

1. On Sunday 3 February this year,  your son had his 8^th birthday.  You and the deceased had friends to the farm at Riverslea near Maffra, where the family had lived for many years.  After the friends left, the deceased told you that she planned to leave you shortly.  Your 30th wedding anniversary was coming up on 10^th March.  You took it that she would be leaving you on that day.  You had difficulty accepting that you or your attitudes were a major problem.  You did not like how she handled the children.  You did not like how she took over the renovating of the house without involving you. You could not accept that her perception seemed to be that you could do nothing right.  You had been saving money to take the deceased to Tasmania for the anniversary.  You were upset that she was planning to move out, and as to the timing.  On the Monday, you did not go to work.  You drove around reminiscing.

1. On the Tuesday, you went to work.  At lunchtime you took the money you had saved to the bank in cash.  You planned to put it in the children’s accounts.  At the bank you were told that the bank would not accept the money.  You left the money at the bank and returned to work.  After work, you went home.  At home, you saw that the children were packing their belongings into boxes.  Your son took from the wall a football plaque that you knew he treasured.  He gave it to you as a sign of remembrance.  It was now clear to you that your wife intended to leave you.  After dinner, everyone went to bed.  Your claimed memory of events in the early morning of the Wednesday is of being in a kind of dream state.

1. Given the horror of what you did, it is no wonder that there has been a suppression of memory.  You took up a hammer.  You went to the sofa bed where your wife was sleeping.  Your son was sleeping alongside her.  You hit your wife some ten times to the head.  While this was happening, your son awoke.  He awoke to find his father mercilessly bashing his mother to death.  He ran to get his sister who responded unbelievingly.  Then, calmly, in the presence of your children and your dying wife, you rang for the police and ambulance.

1. On any view this was a very serious murder.  I am not satisfied that it was committed in a dreamlike state, or on the spur of the moment.  On the other hand, I am not satisfied that it had been long pre-meditated.  Ms Pullen and Ms Gobbo have rigorously reviewed aspects of the evidence that bear on the issue.  They point in different ways.  I reflect that you are not unlike other male partners who have become murderers, regardless of consequences.  They acted precipitantly when they perceived that their self worth, linked to their need to be in control, had been challenged.  Why others have so acted has been a source of puzzlement.  What makes your position more serious again, although also more puzzling again, is that you killed your wife with extreme violence in the presence of your 8 year old son.

1. I have read the report of Mr Joblin.  I note that he has seen you six times in the last 4 months.  I will shortly summarise his opinion.  It is that, at the time you killed your wife, you were suffering from severe psychological distress.  That distress arose from the culmination of the events that I have earlier summarised.  There had been the breaking down of communications, the news of your wife leaving, your inability to deposit the money in the children’s bank accounts, your seeing your children packing their belongings and your son giving you the football plaque by which to remember him.  On his analysis, the emotional excesses were extreme and you were racked by a combination of guilt, disappointment, frustration and apprehension.  Your wife was the source of the conflict.  You attacked her in a state of obvious rage.

1. I accept substantially the assessment of Mr Joblin.  I have reservations about the extent to which he is disposed to accept your perspective as to certain events.  There are clear indications that you are a man who likes to be in control.  Your perception of self worth is attuned to your level of control.  Your wife had already taken from you much of your capacity to exercise much control over your family.  You were about to lose much of the last vestiges.  You chose to blind yourself to the consequences.  You must now bear the consequences.

1. I turn to the victim impact statements that have been tendered to the court, along with the reports of the person counselling your children. I have read them slowly, attentively, and reflectively as befits the obvious care taken in their preparation.   Reading such material is a troubling experience.  It is difficult to suppress emotion when one is dealing with the welfare of small children.  All the indications are that your son and daughter are in very good hands.  But they need to be.  They need to be now.  And they need to be for years to come, given the extreme trauma that they have had to undergo.  And in specifically remembering their plight, I do not overlook the past and future loss and pain of the other victims inside and outside the family.

1. I turn now to your background.  You were born in Hamburg in Germany in March 1941.  You had a happy childhood in a settled and loving family.  You completed a sheetmetal apprenticeship in 1959.  You migrated to Australia in 1960.  You married your first wife in the early 1960’s.  You worked here in factories for some years.  You met the deceased in the late 1960’s, around the time that you separated from your first wife.  The deceased was more than 10 years younger than you.  After the second marriage, you had your own business for some years.  In 1990 you and the deceased moved to the Riverslea farm.  For most of the time after that you worked in Maffra at sheet metal works. You were there involved in community activities including as a volunteer with the Country Fire Authority.

1. There are a significant number of mitigating factors that I must take into account.  You have pleaded guilty.  You have thus unequivocally declared your responsibility for the death of your wife.  You have thus avoided putting your children through the added trauma of a trial.  In that and other ways you have shown remorse. I accept, and allow for the conclusion that you have considerable remorse.  I am unable to quantify how much of what may appear as remorse is heartfelt for the pain and loss you have caused others, and how much is self-pity.

1. I have noted the arrangements that you have put in place to sell most of your assets.  The plan is that most of the proceeds will be used for the benefit of your children.  That is commendable.  On the other hand, if you had not initiated that process, others could reasonably have been expected to take steps which would have been likely to achieve a similar result.  One can understand why almost anything that could be done to support your children in the years ahead should be done.

1. Prison will, for you, carry additional hardships.  Given your age of 61, you are likely to spend most of the rest of your life in prison.  You are not likely to have many visitors.  It may be, or it may not be, best for your children that they may choose never to see you again.  But they are the only ones who should make that choice.

1. General deterrence must be, but special deterrence need not be, a significant consideration.  You have no prior convictions.  You are not a man with a history of violence.  You have been a good worker, a good provider, and a contributor to community affairs.

1. You have spent 216 days in pre-sentence detention to today, 9 September 2002.  I direct that that figure be entered in the court records.  I sentence you to a term of  sixteen years imprisonment.  I fix a non-parole period of twelve years and six months.