R v Roesner - [2002] VSC 384

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1459 of 2002

THE QUEEN

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:

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

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.

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.

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…

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 Roesner

Details

AGLC: R v Roesner [2002] VSC 384
Case: [2002] VSC 384
Decision Date: 9 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the prosecution of Roesner for the murder of his wife, who he brutally attacked while she slept with a hammer, an act which was witnessed by their 8-year-old son. Roesner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this heinous crime, considering the gravity of the offence and the presence of mitigating factors. The legal issues before the court included assessing the appropriate weight to be given to the various mitigating factors and determining a sentence that was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence while also reflecting the mitigating circumstances.

The court carefully considered the mitigating factors presented, including the absence of any previous criminal record for Roesner, his expressions of remorse, and the impact of the crime on his young son. Despite these factors, the court emphasised the brutality of the attack and the profound impact on the victim and her family. The court also noted the significant public interest in ensuring that the sentence reflects the gravity of the crime. After weighing these considerations, the court determined that an imprisonment term of 16 years, with a non-parole period of 12½ years, was appropriate. This sentence was intended to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that Roesner be imprisoned for a total of 16 years, with a non-parole period of 12½ years. This sentence reflects the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence, the mitigating factors, and the broader interests of justice. The decision underscores the gravity of the crime while also taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender and the impact on the victim and her family.

Orders