R v Rolls & Sleiman
[2009] VSC 243
•29 June 2009
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 110 of 2008
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| AARON ROLLS AND MIRVAT SLEIMAN |
---
JUDGE: | KAYE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 May 2009, 5, 22 June 2009 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 June 2009 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Rolls and Sleiman (No. 2) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2009] VSC 243 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to commit murder – Agreement by husband and girlfriend to murder wife by drowning – Differences in positions of the two accused – Psychological condition of female accused.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr P D’Arcy | Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the accused Rolls | Mr S Cash | Galbally Rolfe |
| For the accused Sleiman | Mr W Toohey | Rob Melasecca |
HIS HONOUR:
Aaron Mickeal Bruce Rolls and Mirvat Sleiman. You have both been convicted by the jury, empanelled on your trial, of conspiring together, on or about 16 January 2008, to murder Patrizia Rolls.
Consistent with that verdict, you are each to be sentenced on the basis that the jury was unanimously satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, on or about 16 January 2008, you both intentionally entered into an agreement with each other to murder Rolls’ wife Patrizia Rolls, with the intention that Aaron Rolls would put that agreement into effect by deliberately killing her.
The primary evidence of the conspiracy between you was constituted by the recording of an intercepted telephone call which you, Aaron Rolls, made at 8.45 pm on 16 January 2008 from a public telephone box at Surfers Paradise to you, Mirvat Sleiman, on a mobile phone used by you in Melbourne. Consistent with the Crown case and with their verdicts, the jury was plainly satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the content, language and tone of that conversation was such as to constitute a criminal conspiracy between the two of you to murder Patrizia Rolls. The prosecution case, and the jury’s verdicts, were also supported by a number of background facts proven in the evidence, by the conduct of you, Rolls, in the period of five days after that conversation, and also by two further recorded telephone conversations between the two of you on 21 January 2008.
The background to your crime was the subject of a substantial body of evidence at the trial, and I shall summarise it shortly. You, Aaron Rolls, are now 41 years of age and you, Mirvat Sleiman, are 32 years of age. You, Rolls, first met your wife Patrizia in 1990. You formed a relationship with her, which was to last for more than 17 years. You married Patrizia in 1998. During most of your relationship, you, Rolls, worked as a coal miner, and also performed work as a security guard. In 2007, in partnership with your wife, you founded a business called Aus Marine Security. At the same time, Patrizia was working on the activities desk at the Marriott Hotel, and was also undertaking full time studies.
For many years, there had been problems in your marriage. Patrizia had accused you, Rolls, of infidelity. Although you denied that allegation at the time, you later confessed to her, and confirmed in your evidence, that you had been unfaithful to her. In August 2007, you, Sleiman, met Aaron Rolls. You were then working in an escort agency. At first, you formed a friendship, which reasonably quickly developed into a sexual relationship between you. I accept that, at least for your part, you, Mirvat Sleiman, held deep and sincere feelings for Aaron Rolls. As a result of that relationship, Patrizia Rolls noticed a significant change in Rolls’ attitude and behaviour to her in the latter part of 2007. As a consequence, the relationship between Aaron Rolls and Patrizia Rolls deteriorated. In early October 2007, you, Rolls, confessed to your wife about the affair which you were having with Sleiman, after you had had her first name tattooed on your chest. You claimed that that had occurred on the previous evening, while you were intoxicated.
After that confession, a rift developed between you and your wife. However, you both expressed to each other a desire to repair your marriage, and to continue it. For that purpose, you both underwent counselling.
In the meantime, you, Mirvat Sleiman, were suffering from emotional and psychological problems. You returned to Melbourne for a short time, in order to be with your parents and sisters. When you felt better, you returned to Queensland, but you then returned to Melbourne a few weeks later, because of your emotional condition. At the same time you, Rolls, had encouraged Sleiman to return to Melbourne, not only for her psychological wellbeing, but also so that you could, at least overtly, attempt to repair your marriage. On Sleiman’s return to Melbourne, you telephoned her, and told her that your relationship with her was over. As a result, you, Sleiman, became particularly distressed, and made an attempt on your own life. The evidence of your general practitioner, which was led at the trial, was that at that time you were suffering from major depression, anxiety and insomnia. You were being treated with medication for insomnia, a high dosage of Aropax for major depression, and also Olanzepine, which is ordinarily prescribed for schizophrenia.
I interpolate that in the meantime, in November, the relationship between you, Aaron Rolls, and your wife Patrizia remained fraught. On one occasion, you told her that you were going on a fishing trip with some friends. You refused to let her contact you during your absence. As a result, she made an attempt on her own life, and had to be rushed to hospital for three days. You did not go fishing, but instead stayed at a hotel. You did not visit your wife in hospital. After Patrizia’s discharge from hospital, the two of you again appeared to have made efforts to repair your marriage. However, after a short time, you, Rolls, continued to be in telephone contact with Mirvat Sleiman. The two of you resumed your relationship, at least on the telephone.
During the period from December 2007 to early January 2008, those who knew you, Rolls, and your wife, observed that your relationship appeared to be going well. Indeed, it would seem that the two of you made an effort to be seen to be reconciling to each other, and to be happy in each other’s company. However, under the surface there were still problems between you. You, Rolls, continued to be in regular contact with Sleiman. In private, your relationship with your wife was not going well, and you remained distant from her.
The Crown case was that the conspiracy, for which the two of you have been convicted, was formulated between you on or about 16 January 2008. In my view, the evidence makes it clear, as the jury would have accepted, that in the period shortly before the conversation of 16 January, the two of you had already discussed the idea of you, Rolls, ridding yourself of your wife, by murdering her. That conclusion is inescapable from the manner in which the telephone conversation, of 16 January, commenced. It is clear from the content and from the tone of that conversation that, contrary to the evidence which you, Rolls, gave before the jury, you had not just concocted the story of murdering your wife when you entered the telephone box. Rather, you, Rolls, were providing to you, Sleiman, the details of the plan, which you both had previously discussed undertaking to murder your wife. The series of telephone and text messages which passed between you, and which culminated in the telephone call of 16 January 2008, strongly supports the conclusion that the two of you had anticipated that it was in that telephone call that you, Rolls, would provide to you, Sleiman, the details of how you planned to carry out your murderous joint intent. You, Rolls, had already laid some foundations for the plan, by suggesting a hike in the mountains to your wife. While I accept that the conspiracy itself was concluded in the conversation of 16 January 2008, for the reasons I have just stated, in my view it clearly had its roots in other discussions and communications which must have occurred between the two of you in the period shortly before that conversation.
It is not necessary for me to set out the whole of the telephone call, which the two of you had on 16 January 2008. You, Rolls, commenced the conversation by telling Sleiman what was going to happen. You detailed to Sleiman how you planned to take your wife for a walk on the beach, and drown her there. You said that you would not take a taxi or public transport home, so that you would not be identified. Rather, you would walk home. You told her that you had already timed the walk. You even told Sleiman that you would not be able to carry out your plan until after the forthcoming weekend, because of your work commitments. You stated that you and your wife would drive to the beach in your wife’s vehicle, and that you would then dispose of the keys after you had drowned her. You would have available a spare set of clothes, so that you could dump the clothes, which you were wearing when you drowned your wife, because they would be wet. You also mentioned that, as an alternative, you might take your wife hiking in the mountains, and that she would have an accident. When you discussed those plans, you, Sleiman, participated by volunteering how Rolls might carry them out. Thus, you, Sleiman, suggested that Patrizia Rolls might be induced to walk on the beach by being invited for a “romantic walk”, during which she and Rolls would go “skinny dipping”. When you, Rolls, asked whether you, Sleiman, were “cool” with the plan, you Sleiman answered “Yeah … absolutely … absolutely”. When you, Rolls, explained that there might be a delay because of the adverse weather occurring on the Gold Coast, you, Sleiman, responded “… if the weather goes fucking good any day, like before that, then just fucking do it … “. Later, you, Sleiman, remarked “I just want it to get over and done with”.
What is particularly chilling about that conversation is the matter of fact manner in which the two of you calmly discussed the details of the plan formulated by you, Rolls, to dispose of your wife by murdering her. I listened carefully to the recording of that conversation, as no doubt did the jury. Not once could I detect any hesitation, or note of regret, by either of you as to the evil plan that you were then discussing. Not once was there evident, to the slightest degree, any recognition or feeling by either of you of the enormity of what the two of you were undertaking. In your case, Rolls, it is particularly disturbing that there was not the faintest indication that you, then, were feeling any regret or pang of conscience about betraying your wife, by planning to cold bloodedly murder the woman, who had been loyal to you for almost two decades.
On the contrary, in the days which followed, you, Rolls, continued your pretence of caring about your wife. In discussions with friends, you maintained, to a highly successful degree, your pretence that you still cared about your wife, and that you were trying to repair your relationship with her. Such was the extent of your evil plan, that you were even able to deceive two of your closest and most loyal friends of your then feelings towards your wife, when the four of you met for dinner on the evening of 19 January. Clearly, you successfully deceived your trusting wife as to your murderous intentions towards her. It is particularly concerning that, from the events which followed, it is clear, and I believe the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that during the same period, neither you nor Sleiman had resiled from your intentions to kill Patrizia.
Thus it was that on the same day, Saturday 19 January, when you, Rolls, and your wife went shopping, you deliberately made a detour to the Surfers Paradise Beach. It is not clear what your precise intent was, but it can be no coincidence that, three days earlier, you had discussed taking your wife to the beach to drown her. Whether you visited the beach to assist you to formulate precisely how you were to dispose of your wife, or whether you did so to implant in her mind the idea of a beach walk some time later, is not clear. However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, as no doubt was the jury, that the visit to the beach on that day was connected with your plan to drown your wife.
In the meantime, and quite unbeknown to you, the police in Melbourne had, by coincidence, been monitoring the phone box from which you made the critical call to you, Sleiman, on 16 January. The Victorian police investigators tracked down Patrizia Rolls and, on 21 January, took her from her home to safety. When you arrived home later that day and found her missing, you, Rolls, successfully maintained a pretence to her friends and acquaintances that you were genuinely concerned about her. You made a series of phone calls to those friends, which were intercepted, in which you maintained your masquerade. Your deception in doing so is revealed in two telephone calls, which you made on that day to, you, Sleiman. In the first call, at about 8.00 am, you, Rolls, and you, Sleiman, speculated that Patrizia Rolls might have saved you the effort of drowning her, by killing herself. You both, somehow, found that that prospect caused you great mirth. Your reactions to the prospect that Patrizia Rolls might, tragically, have done away with herself, are, I consider, irrefutable confirmation of the true feelings which the two of you harboured towards her.
The fact that Patrizia Rolls was saved from the evil plan, which the two of you had hatched, was to some extent a matter of good fortune. Her rescue was also due to the effort, skill and commitment of the Victorian and Queensland investigators in this case, and in particular Senior Detective Nathan Favre, Senior Constable Philip Gynther, and Detective Sergeant Stuart Bailey. They are to be commended.
The offence, for which the two of you have been convicted, is particularly serious. The Crimes Act prescribes that the maximum sentence for that offence is life imprisonment. The statutory maximum reflects the seriousness with which the law regards an intentional agreement, between two or more persons, to take the life of another person. As I have stated, the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, on or about 16 January 2008, the two of you intentionally entered into an agreement, whereby you genuinely intended, there and then, that Aaron Rolls would murder his wife. The method by which that plan was to be carried out was that you, Aaron Rolls, were to exploit on your wife’s love for, and trust of, you by going to a secluded part of a beach, whereupon you would induce your wife to swim, and in the course of doing so, would deliberately drown her. The method by which the two of you intended to dispose of Patrizia Rolls is, as I stated, spine chilling and horrifying.
Your role, Aaron Rolls, could only be described as utterly despicable. The agreement you entered into, and the method by which you intended to put it into effect, involved the most fundamental and appalling betrayal by you of the trust which your wife had in you. A husband’s duty is to love, protect and care for his wife. Your treacherous plan involved the very opposite of that. Your wife, Patrizia, gave you no cause for your vile plan. She was at all times a good, loving and loyal wife to you. Notwithstanding your infidelity, and your unkindness to her, she nevertheless tried her utmost to resurrect and maintain her marriage with you. She remained in love with you. In the witness box, she was an impressive, dignified and courageous woman. The depths of your betrayal of her could not be overstated.
You, Mirvat Sleiman, were not only an intentional, but indeed a willing, participant in the murderous plan which you shared with Aaron Rolls. Your participation in that agreement meant that you combined with a man to betray his wife to such an extraordinary degree as to deliberately murder her, while luring her under false pretences on a romantic walk on the beach. The callousness of the two of you, as evidenced by the phone call of 16 January and the two conversations you had on 21 January, reflects just how heartless you each were in your sinister plan.
The crime, for which you are both to be sentenced, comprises the making of the agreement to murder Patrizia Rolls. However, the steps which you, Rolls, undertook thereafter in the ensuing five days are relevant, because they reflect the content, duration and reality of the conspiracy you entered into with Mirvat Sleiman. Thus, the visit to the beach, your ongoing pretence to your wife and your friends, your feigned concern for her disappearance, and the allegations you made to your friends that she had resorted to drinking alcohol recently, were all part of the plan which you had concluded with Sleiman on 16 January. Those factors, the nature of the conversation you had on 16 January, and the two conversations you had with Sleiman on 21 January, each demonstrate and satisfy me that the agreement, which you had formulated on 16 January, remained then on foot. Neither of you had resiled from it.
It was submitted by Mr Cash of counsel, who appeared on behalf of you, Rolls, that the conspiracy was only of brief duration. However, as I have just stated, I am satisfied that by 21 January, neither you nor Sleiman had retracted from the agreement or abandoned the pursuit of it. Rather, the object of the conspiracy was thwarted by the timely intervention of the police.
It was further submitted on your behalf that the agreement, which constituted the conspiracy, was neither complex nor sophisticated. That is correct. However, the simplicity of your plan lay in the fact that you both considered that you, Rolls, would be able to achieve your aim by taking advantage of your wife’s trust. I reject the submission made on your behalf, and indeed I reject your evidence at trial, that you only thought of the details of your plan while you were speaking on the phone to Sleiman. In my view, it is clear, from the content of the conversation, and the manner in which you spoke, that you had already thought through the details of how you were to achieve the object of the conspiracy. It was similarly submitted that the plan was fundamentally unrealistic. However, clearly neither of you thought that that was so. Further, I do not accept that the plan was, fundamentally, unrealistic. The prospects of success of the plan lay in the vulnerability of Patrizia Rolls, which was borne of her love and trust for you, Aaron Rolls.
I turn then to matters relating to your personal background, Aaron Rolls.
You are 41 years of age, and have two younger brothers. When you were young, your parents moved residences on a number of occasions, in order to accommodate your father’s work requirements. As a result, your education was interrupted, and you left school at the age of 15. Thereafter, in the following seventeen years or so, you were largely employed in the coal mining industry. In 1997, you lost your employment, because of your involvement in an industrial dispute, and you and Patrizia took the opportunity to travel to Europe together. On your return, you resumed your work in coal mining.
In 2000, you and Patrizia then moved to the Gold Coast, where you commenced work in the security industry. For the next seven years, you were engaged by Meridien Marina Horizon Shores Pty Ltd, of Sanctuary Lakes, in undertaking security work. As I stated, in March 2007 you and your wife then commenced your own business, Aus Marines Security. Mr Shane Hay, the general manager of Meridien Marina, gave evidence at your trial. He stated that you were honest and trustworthy, and he had no reason to doubt your integrity. The work which you undertook was quite responsible, involving providing security for a large number of expensive boats which were worth many millions of dollars. Mr Hay stated that he considered that you were very good at running your own security firm. Mr Hay’s evidence was supported by the evidence of his wife, Karen Hay, who regarded you as well trusted, and as a committed and conscientious worker. Mr Cameron Pill, your good friend, also gave evidence that he had known you for about eight years, and that he and others who knew you held you in high regard. He gave evidence at your trial that you were well respected as being honest, straightforward and good at your work. Good character evidence was also given, at your trial, by your other friends, Glen Harlow and Susan Childs. Based on that evidence, and your lack of any previous convictions, I accept that, apart from your involvement in this crime, you are a man of otherwise good character who had, hitherto, earned a high reputation among those who knew you both professionally and personally.
On a personal level, you were married early at the age of 20 years. That marriage did not survive for long, and it was subsequently annulled. As I have already stated, you met Patrizia Rolls in 1990, and entered into a relationship with her. You later married her in 1998. Despite its tribulations, the marriage survived until your arrest in January 2008. You are now divorced. As a result of a Family Court settlement, you lost most of your assets. I accept that when you complete your term of imprisonment, you will have no assets or funds with which to fend.
In the course of the plea made on your behalf by Mr Cash, I received evidence concerning your mother’s ill health. In March 2008, your mother had a malignant tumour removed from her neck, and a subcutaneous cancer removed from her scalp. On her last review, your mother did not show any evidence of residual disease, however she does face a risk of recurrence, particularly over the next five years. In addition, your youngest brother Shane is at present undergoing tests relating to his pituitary gland. I accept that the health problems relating to your family are a matter of substantial concern to you, particularly given the close relationship which you have with your mother. Further, your family lives in Queensland, and do not have funds to visit you in Victoria other than on rare occasions. Accordingly, I accept that for those reasons a substantial term of imprisonment will be more burdensome for you to bear.
I turn, then, to matters relating to your personal background, Mirvat Sleiman. Those matters are relevant in identifying mitigating circumstances relating both to your offending and also to your current situation.
You were born in 1977 in Tripoli, Lebanon. You migrated with your family to Australia at the age of seven. You have five siblings. During your early years, your father was violent to your mother. For some time, he was addicted to gambling and he drank alcohol to excess.
You were educated to Year 9 level. When you were fifteen years of age, you travelled to Lebanon with your family. There your father arranged for you to be married to a Lebanese man, who you had only just met, and who was substantially older than you. Your husband was violent towards you and also abused you emotionally. When you were sixteen years of age, you gave birth to a son, Jamal. Your time in Lebanon was difficult. Not only was your husband abusive towards you, but you also were pressured by his large and religiously observant family. After a short time, you returned to Australia with Jamal. On your return, your own family disowned you, and you had to make a living, with Jamal, on your own.
In due course, your husband followed you back to Australia. When Jamal was three years of age, your husband pressured you to permit him to take Jamal back to Lebanon for a short time. However, after your husband returned with Jamal to Lebanon, he never came back to Australia. During the next ten years, you maintained limited telephone contact with Jamal in Lebanon. You also made two visits to Lebanon, but were only permitted short periods of access to your son on both occasions.
When you had first returned to Australia with Jamal in 1994, your lifestyle collapsed. You took to using party drugs such as ecstasy and Mogadon. In order to support yourself and your son, you began to work in the sex industry. Ultimately, you travelled to Lebanon at the age of 21, where you remained for two years. Upon your return to Australia, you made substantial steps towards improving your lifestyle. You ceased using drugs and alcohol, and adopted a healthy life. In particular, you became interested in Taekwondo, to which you devoted a substantial amount of time. In due course, you achieved a high standard at Taekwondo, and competed in championships with some success.
In the meantime, in order to support yourself, you continued to work in the escort industry. However, in April 2003, while you were doing so, you were subjected to a traumatic incident. On that occasion, a client attempted to imprison you in his home, and to assault you with a knife. After a violent struggle with him, you managed to break free, and obtained help. You reported the matter to the police, and as a result, your assailant was charged with false imprisonment. Consequently, you were required to give evidence, both at the committal proceeding, and also at your assailant’s trial in the County Court. Both occasions were particularly stressful to you, and you were only able to complete your evidence by giving it by audio visual link. The trauma and stress caused to you as a result of that incident was substantially exacerbated when your assailant was acquitted.
During that time, you had been referred by the Victims of Crime Assistance Service to Ms Carol Cheung Schmidt, a psychologist. Ms Schmidt saw you, for counselling purposes, on some 25 occasions between May 2003 and January 2004. She noted that you suffered from a number of symptoms, including anxiety, insomnia, nightmares and flashback memories. Ms Schmidt diagnosed that you had sustained a post traumatic stress disorder. By January 2004, the disorder had not resolved, but it had become mild. However, you continued to suffer from stress during the ensuing period. In late 2004, you were referred to Ms Alison Robertson, an accredited mental health social worker. Ms Robertson saw you for counselling purposes on 20 occasions until June 2005. When you initially presented to her, you were very anxious, and subject to panic attacks. Ms Robertson then considered that you had elements of a post traumatic stress disorder, but she also thought that you exhibited features of a borderline personality disorder. At the time, you responded well to counselling by Ms Robertson. Your panic attacks settled, and you were able to resume your normal activities, including your Taekwondo training to a limited extent.
However, as a result of the acquittal of your assailant, you felt particularly insecure, and accordingly you went to Queensland for your safety. After a short time, you found a place to live on the Gold Coast, and commenced working as an escort. Subsequently, you set up your own escort business, which was quite successful. As a result, you were able to purchase your own home on the Gold Coast.
As I have already stated, in due course you met and formed a friendship, and then a relationship, with your co-accused Aaron Rolls. Your relationship with Rolls was turbulent. During the course of it, Rolls attempted to hold on to his marriage to Patrizia Rolls, while also maintaining his relationship with you. For your part, you entertained strong romantic feelings to Aaron Rolls, and wanted to spend your life with him. The tempestuous nature of the relationship which you had with Rolls had a detrimental effect on your psychological wellbeing. I have already referred to your emotional state when you returned to Melbourne in late 2007, and, particularly, to the stress which you suffered when Rolls attempted to break off his relationship with you.
On 18 January 2008, you again consulted Ms Robertson. It is significant that that consultation took place two days after your telephone call with Aaron Rolls, and a short time before your arrest. On that occasion, you wanted to discuss with Ms Robertson your reaction to an incident which had occurred with Rolls in October 2007. In particular, it would seem, you were concerned about your extreme reaction to Rolls at the time of that incident. However, at the time of that consultation, on 18 January, Ms Robertson noted that you were then quite well, that you were very happy with your “boyfriend” Aaron Rolls, and that you felt that he was “the one” for you.
You were subsequently arrested on 22 January. After you were released on bail, your psychological condition deteriorated. On 2 February, you were admitted to Broadmeadows Adult Inpatient Unit, which is conducted by the North West Area Mental Health Service. I have read a report of Dr Muirhead, the Director of that Service, which was tendered on your plea. You remained a patient of that unit for one month. During that time, you received a number of treatments from the unit. The final diagnosis was of a personality disorder, complicated by a mixed anxiety disorder with panic attacks. It was considered in your best interests that you be referred back to your general practitioner and counsellor for further treatment.
During 2008 and 2009, you have continued to consult Ms Robertson for counselling to assist you with the stress and anxiety arising from your trial.
In June 2008, you were referred to Dr Sunil Datta, a psychiatrist. Dr Datta saw you on three occasions. He diagnosed you to be suffering from a borderline personality disorder, which has the effect of rendering you susceptible to anxiety, depression and post traumatic stress disorder. Dr Datta considers that your personality disorder was largely the product of stresses to which you were subjected during your childhood, and was also a result of your forced marriage when you were 15 years of age. He considered that the incident, in which you were attacked, in 2003, might have had an effect on your personality disorder, but he was of the opinion that that disorder had its origins much earlier in your life.
Your psychological and emotional circumstances and history are relevant in a number of respects in relation to your sentence. It is clear, on the evidence, that your psychological condition did not directly affect your decision to participate in the agreement with Rolls to murder Patrizia Rolls. As I have stated, the evidence of Ms Robertson is to the contrary. Furthermore, the tone of the telephone conversation between you, Sleiman, and Rolls on 16 January militates against any suggestion that, at that time, your psychological condition clouded or affected your capacity to judge that what you were then doing was wrong.
On the other hand, I do accept that your underlying borderline personality disorder, and your psychological problems, played a role in your participation in the crime for which you have been convicted. I agree with the submission made by your counsel Mr Toohey that, because of your underlying psychological condition, the unstable relationship which you had with Rolls had a greater impact on your emotional state, than it might otherwise have had. Consequently, you had difficulty coping with the prospect of losing Rolls, and that heightened your anxiety to take steps to secure your future with him. In that way, I agree with Mr Toohey’s submission that your borderline personality disorder made it more likely than otherwise that you participated in the criminal agreement, for which you have been convicted. I also note Dr Datta’s evidence that people of your personality type, in general, are more likely to be led, and open to suggestion.
That said, it is important to bear in mind that, at the time of the agreement with Rolls, you were psychologically well. As I have stated, you well understood the nature of what you were doing. Your capacity to judge and understand the enormity of what you were planning was intact. It is clear, from the conversation which you had with Rolls on 16 January, that you knew that what you were then planning was wrong and unlawful. Thus, you both took steps, before that conversation, to ensure that it would not be traced, and you both took care, during the conversation, to ensure that it was not being overheard.
I accept Mr Toohey’s submission that it was Rolls, and not you, who instigated the idea of murdering Patrizia Rolls. Indeed, so much was admitted by Rolls in his evidence at your trial. However, as I have already indicated, I do not accept the submission that the first discussion, in which you both seriously considered the idea of murdering Patrizia Rolls, took place on 16 January, in the call which was intercepted by the police. As I have already stated, the series of telephone and text messages which passed between you, and the content of the conversation on 16 January, lead to the inevitable conclusion that you had both seriously discussed murdering Patrizia Rolls in the short period which preceded 16 January. You have been convicted of entering into a conspiracy on or about 16 January, and, pursuant to the directions which I gave to the jury, I accept that the preceding conversations only occurred a short time before the critical phone call of 16 January. I further accept that the conspiracy was not concluded, until the telephone call to you from the telephone box in Queensland by Rolls on 16 January.
I also accept that it was Rolls who developed and formulated the specifics of the plan, by which he was to murder his wife. However, I do not accept Mr Toohey’s submission that you, Sleiman, were, almost entirely, a passive participant in the conspiracy. The nature, tone and extent of your participation in the telephone conversation on 16 January, together with your reactions at 8.00 am on 21 January, when Patrizia Rolls was missing, make it clear that your role in the conversation, and thus in the conspiracy, was greater than that contended for by Mr Toohey.
Your psychological condition is, I consider, relevant in other respects in relation to your sentence. First, I accept the evidence of Dr Datta that, as a result of your vulnerable psychological state, and particularly your susceptibility to bouts of anxiety and depression, you will find a period of imprisonment more burdensome than would a person in a more healthy psychological state. That evidence requires me to moderate the period of imprisonment, to which you are to be sentenced, by some reasonable degree.
In addition, it stands substantially to your credit that you have no previous convictions, notwithstanding your difficult childhood, the trauma of your early marriage, and the distressing circumstances of your attack in 2003. Your achievement in doing so is, I consider, all the much greater by the fact that you have managed to remain trouble free notwithstanding your underlying psychological problems.
Furthermore, as Mr Toohey has pointed out, you did display some industry and enterprise in Queensland, both in maintaining your own business, and purchasing your own home. Those matters give some cause for optimism as to your prospects of rehabilitation. Those prospects are enhanced by the fact that at least some of your close family, including your mother and your sister, have stood by you throughout the trial, and are clearly an important support to you.
You have shown no remorse for your involvement in the criminal conspiracy for which you have been convicted. While your plea of not guilty might have precluded you indicating any remorse for the criminal nature of your offence, nonetheless you have not, in any event, indicated any sense of insight or understanding as to the enormity of the plan which you jointly formulated with Aaron Rolls. You are not to be punished for a lack of remorse, but its absence does, to some extent, weigh against your prospects of rehabilitation. Nonetheless, notwithstanding your lack of remorse, I am prepared to accept that you do have quite good prospects of rehabilitation, particularly provided that you receive, and accept, appropriate psychological and psychiatric assistance during your term of imprisonment.
In summary, then, the crime for which you both have been convicted is a particularly serious offence. As I have stated, the Crimes Act provides that the maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. I do not accept the submission made on your behalf that the offence, in this case, is at the lower end of the scale of such offences. The heinousness, and gravity, of the offence lies in the fundamental betrayal of trust placed by your wife in you, Rolls, and by the participation of you, Sleiman, in that betrayal. Further, Patrizia Rolls gave neither of you any cause to enter into an agreement to murder her. This is not a case where the conduct of a wife or husband has been such as to drive his or her partner to some extreme measure. On the contrary, the essence of the conspiracy involved you, Rolls, exploiting your wife’s belief in you, and taking advantage of her sincere attempts to resurrect your marriage.
In this context, I have read the two victim impact statements tendered to me. As I indicated in the course of the submissions, substantial parts of each of the victim impact statements are inadmissible, and I have ignored those parts. However, the admissible parts of Patrizia Rolls’s victim impact statement reinforce the deeply hurtful nature of the betrayal by you, Rolls, of your wife, and of the perfidious behaviour of both you and Sleiman.
As I stated, the offence of conspiracy to murder is not only inherently a serious offence, but the circumstances of your offending are particularly serious. It is important that the sentence, which I am to pass on both of you, is sufficiently severe to constitute an adequate condemnation by the Court, and the community, of your outrageous behaviour. The sentence must also be sufficient to deter others, who might be like minded to enter into such wicked agreements. Furthermore, the sentence must be adequate to deter both of you from any further such offending.
On the pleas made in mitigation of sentence, it was correctly accepted by counsel that there are differences in the culpability and in the personal circumstances of both of you. The culpability of you, Rolls, is greater than that of you, Sleiman, for two reasons. Firstly, it was you, Rolls, who instigated and formulated the plan, to which Sleiman agreed, to murder your wife. Secondly, as I stated, the conspiracy involved the direct betrayal by you of your wife, whereas Sleiman’s participation in the agreement involved such a betrayal in a less direct sense. In addition, I consider that the personal circumstances of the two of you are, to a relevant extent, different. I accept that you, Rolls, will find a term of imprisonment more burdensome because of your separation from your family, and because of the ill health particularly of your mother. However, I consider that a term of imprisonment would be more burdensome on you, Sleiman, because of your vulnerable psychological condition.
I also take into account the mitigating circumstances in relation to both of you, to which I have already referred. In particular, apart from the offending, you are both of good character and have no previous convictions. You, Rolls, have a good work record, and those who knew you personally and professionally held you in high regard. You, Sleiman, have had a difficult life, but notwithstanding your adversity, you have been able to make your own way in the world. I accept that your psychological problems are a relevant background to your offending, in that your sense of insecurity concerning your relationship with Rolls made you more readily disposed to participating in the criminal agreement for which you are convicted. In the case of both of you, I consider that your prospects of rehabilitation are, by and large, reasonably good.
Bearing those matters in mind, I sentence you both as follows.
(a)Aaron Mickeal Bruce Rolls. I sentence you to a term of 11 years’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum of 8 years’ imprisonment before you become eligible for parole. Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the period of 50 days be reckoned as already served under the sentence which I impose. I shall cause a notation to be made in the records of the Court that that declaration was made.
(b)Mirvat Sleiman. I sentence you to a term of 9 years’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum of 6 years’ imprisonment before you become eligible for parole. Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the period of 50 days be reckoned as already served under the sentence which I impose. I shall cause a notation to be made in the records of the Court that that declaration was made.
0
0
0