R v Rolfe - [2017] NSWSC 1393

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rolfe [2017] NSWSC 1393
Hearing dates: 6 February 2017, 3 August 2017
Date of orders: 12 October 2017
Decision date: 12 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Convictions recorded

(2) For the offence of murder, sentence imposed of non-parole period of 8 years’ and 6 months, commencing 23 April 2015 and concluding 22 October 2023, with a remainder of term of imprisonment of 4 years’ and 6 months, concluding 22 April 2028.

(3) For the offence of possession of firearm, taking into account the Form 1, sentence imposed of non-parole period of 5 years’ and 6 months, commencing 22 June 2018 and concluding 21 December 2023, with a remainder of term of imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months, concluding 21 October 2025.
(4) First eligible for parole on 21 December 2023.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – murder – joint criminal enterprise – parity with shooter – pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities of exceptional nature – discount awarded – possession of pistol with Form 1 for possess ammunition – totality principle – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A
Cases Cited: Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 476
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Steven Rolfe (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Bailey (Crown)
T Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Takchi & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/00120363
Publication restriction: NON-PUBLICATION ORDER RE IDENTIFICATION OF OFFENDER’S ACCOMMODATION OR LOCATION NON-PUBLICATION ORDER RE IDENTIFICATION OF WORK PREMISES, SCHOOL PREMISES OR HOME ADDRESS OF THE OFFENDER’S FAMILY

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: On 6 February 2017, Timothy Steven Rolfe pleaded guilty to the charge of murder of Laurence Starling on 24 July 2014 on the basis of joint criminal enterprise. The sentencing has been delayed by the delay in sentencing his co-offender, Mr Weston (hereinafter “the co-offender”).
Mr Rolfe’s proceedings on sentence occurred on 8 August 2017. The plea occurred on, or just prior to, the commencement of the intended trial and is not an early plea. It is certainly not a plea at the earliest opportunity. However, Mr Rolfe gave evidence in the co-offender’s trial and is entitled to the benefit of that assistance. I will deal with that issue later.
I also now deal with a sentence for the possession of a firearm, with a Form 1 offence for ammunition possession.

Process of sentencing

The Court is required to assess the objective seriousness of an offence within the range of conduct with which offences of that kind are concerned. It is necessary to assess the conduct of the offender, Mr Rolfe, to determine where, in that range of seriousness, this offence fits.
The Court must objectively assess the features of the offence and the circumstances of its commission, in order to determine whether it is in the category of a…

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 Rolfe

Details

AGLC: R v Rolfe [2017] NSWSC 1393
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1393
Decision Date: 12 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rolfe, the respondent pleaded guilty to charges of murder and possession of a pistol with a form 1 for possessing ammunition. The respondent was part of a joint criminal enterprise with another individual, who was the shooter in the case. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentencing for the respondent, taking into account the totality principle and the fact that the respondent had provided exceptional assistance to the authorities. The respondent had also pleaded guilty and had been involved in a joint criminal enterprise, which was relevant to the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence should reflect the totality principle, whether the exceptional assistance provided by the respondent warranted a discount, and whether the respondent's involvement in a joint criminal enterprise should be considered. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence for the respondent. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence for the charge of possession of a pistol with a form 1 for possessing ammunition.

The court found that the exceptional assistance provided by the respondent warranted a discount to the sentence. The court also found that the respondent's involvement in a joint criminal enterprise did not warrant parity with the shooter. The court considered the totality principle and found that the sentence should reflect the totality of the respondent's offending. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these findings, taking into account the appropriate discount for exceptional assistance and the totality of the respondent's offending. The court also imposed a sentence for the charge of possession of a pistol with a form 1 for possessing ammunition.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years for the charge of murder, and a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for a term of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years for the charge of possession of a pistol with a form 1 for possessing ammunition. The court also ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.

Orders