R v Rolls & Sleiman - [2009] VSC 243

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 110 of 2008

THE QUEEN

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.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rolls & Sleiman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] VSC 243
Decision Date: 29 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rolls & Sleiman, the defendants were convicted for their involvement in a conspiracy to murder the wife of one of the accused. The court heard that the male accused, Rolls, had conspired with his girlfriend, Sleiman, to murder his wife by drowning. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the appropriate sentencing for the two defendants. The court had to consider the roles each played in the conspiracy, as well as the psychological condition of Sleiman.

The court identified that while both defendants were equally guilty of the conspiracy, their roles and motivations were distinct. Rolls was the instigator, driven by a desire to end his marriage, whereas Sleiman, who had a history of mental health issues, was more susceptible to Rolls' influence. The court also noted the potential mitigating effect of Sleiman's psychological state on her culpability. These factors were critical in determining the sentence for each defendant. The court had to balance the gravity of the crime with the individual circumstances of each accused, including their roles and personal backgrounds.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the conspiracy but recognised the differing contributions of each defendant. Rolls was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, reflecting his dominant role and the premeditated nature of the crime. Sleiman, on the other hand, received a lesser sentence, with consideration given to her mental health issues and the extent of her involvement. The court concluded that while both were culpable, the sentence should reflect their respective roles and personal circumstances. The court's decision provided a nuanced approach to sentencing, recognising the complexity of the case and the need to consider individual factors in the sentencing process.

The court ordered that Rolls be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years, with a non-parole period of fifteen years. Sleiman was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years, with a non-parole period of seven years. The court's decision was based on the differing roles and personal circumstances of the two defendants, ensuring that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders