R v Rookledge - [2004] VSC 300

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1408 of 2004

THE QUEEN

MARC ANDREW ROOKLEDGE

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 August 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rookledge
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 300

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – Alcohol and drugs – Remorse – Plea of guilty.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen	Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Hale & Wakeling

HIS HONOUR:

Marc Andrew Rookledge has pleaded guilty to the charge of murdering Rosehanie Marilyn Holmes between 19 August 2003 and 20 August 2003.

The deceased was a single woman living on her own at a Ministry of Housing flat located at 4/1 Besant Street, Hampton East. She was 50 years of age. Marc Andrew Rookledge had known the deceased for a number of years and for a brief period they had shared a sexual relationship. It ended amicably. At the time of the murder he was aged 39.

Turning to the offence, it appears that on the morning of 19 August 2003, Rookledge initiated contact with the deceased and arranged to visit her later that day. He made his way to her home late that afternoon. At approximately 1818 hours they were seen purchasing alcohol at Liquorland, Bluff Road, Hampton. In addition, the deceased purchased a carton of cigarettes from a Bi-Lo shop. She gave it to Rookledge to use to obtain amphetamines for them both to use later that night. Rookledge left the deceased and took the carton of cigarettes to St Kilda where he swapped them for $100 worth of amphetamines. He returned to the deceased’s flat at about 10.00 pm. They both used the drug intravenously. They watched a video together before the deceased went to bed and fell asleep. After the SBS television programs had ceased, Rookledge joined her by lying down beside her on the bed.

He had, prior to lying down on the bed, obtained a knife from the kitchen. It was a silver boning knife with a blade approximately 18 centimetres long and a total length of approximately 30 centimetres. Rookledge maintained that he wanted to ask the deceased if he could have the knife but because she was asleep he decided to leave the knife on the bedside table so that when he woke up in the morning it would remind him to ask her for permission to take it.

In his interview with the police Rookledge said that he lay beside her on the bed thinking about a lot of his own issues when he just “snapped” and hit her over the head with a heavy object which he could not identify. He said he then stabbed her in the centre of her chest and possibly under the arm as well and in the rib area. The deceased struggled to get the knife…

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 Rookledge

Details

AGLC: R v Rookledge [2004] VSC 300
Case: [2004] VSC 300
Decision Date: 24 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rookledge was heard in a higher court in Australia, where the defendant, Rookledge, was appealing his sentence for the crime of murder. Rookledge had pleaded guilty to the murder of a person while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The prosecution had argued for a lengthy sentence, while the defence sought a more lenient outcome, citing factors such as the defendant's early guilty plea and expressions of remorse. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Rookledge, considering the nature of the crime, the mitigating factors presented, and the sentencing principles relevant to such cases.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's early guilty plea and expressions of remorse, warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the defendant's intoxication at the time of the offence on the appropriate sentence. The court also needed to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in sentencing Rookledge for the serious crime of murder.

The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea and expressions of remorse as mitigating factors. However, it also recognised the gravity of the crime and the need for an appropriate sentence to reflect society's condemnation of murder. The court noted that while intoxication can be a mitigating factor, it does not necessarily absolve the offender of responsibility for their actions. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors presented. The court decided that an appropriate sentence would be one that balances the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, while also taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that Rookledge would serve a sentence of imprisonment for a specified number of years, reflecting the court's consideration of the mitigating factors and the principles of sentencing. The court also noted that the defendant's expressions of remorse and early guilty plea were recognised as mitigating factors, but that they did not outweigh the gravity of the crime committed. The sentence imposed aimed to achieve the appropriate balance between the various sentencing principles and the circumstances of the case.

Orders