R v Rookledge
[2004] VSC 300
•24 August 2004
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1408 of 2004
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| 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 from him and he said that she may have cuts to her hands as a result of that. He said that while this was occurring he was extremely angry. He told the police that once he had started stabbing her he thought he had better make it as quick and painless as possible – that there was no return. He spoke of her head spasming.
After killing her, Rookledge tried to cover her body with a doona. He then did a number of things in an effort to conceal his involvement. He took the deceased’s purse from her handbag and opened the drawers in the bedroom to make the event look like a robbery gone wrong. He placed his clothing, the knife and an empty coke bottle in a plastic shopping bag and put them in the garbage bags that were out on the front nature strip ready for collection that morning. He took her house keys and left, locking the premises after him. He also took some credit cards from the purse. As he walked down the street he threw some items belonging to the deceased in other bins. He used the cash to pay for a taxi back to his home. He kept the deceased’s house keys and cards for a few days before disposing of them by throwing them over the Westgate Bridge.
The body of the deceased was not found for some six days. On the day following, the police attempted to contact Rookledge and arranged to meet him at about 1.00 pm. Rookledge attended the St Kilda police station. He was taken to the Homicide Squad office with a view to obtaining a statement. On arriving there Rookledge said “You don’t have to look any further I’m the one you’re looking for”. He also said “I’m responsible for Rosehanie’s death. It’s all hazy. It happened last Tuesday or Wednesday. I just snapped”.
To understand what occurred it is necessary to understand something of the life of Rookledge and his problems.
Rookledge is estranged from his natural family. He suffered a disturbed and abused childhood. At approximately four years of age, he was adopted (together with his sister) by an aunt. They went to live with the aunt and uncle on a property near Dunkeld. The adoptive father, however, repeatedly assaulted Rookledge and sexually abused his sister, actions which he was at times required to observe. He says that he was also sexually abused by his adoptive brother. I do not propose to go into all the details. His solution to his problems was to attempt to run away from his adoptive family. The result was that he was taken into the care of the State and lived in various boys’ homes including Baltara, Tally Ho, Turana, St Johns Home and Auburn Boys Home. He ran away from a number of those institutions as well. At the age of 17 ½ he joined the RAAF. He remained with it for two years and nine months. He was disciplined, however, for drinking and ultimately dismissed for smoking marijuana. He subsequently attempted to become a chef and commenced an apprenticeship for that purpose. While working at that time at the House of Hope he met his wife who was a client of that organisation. Their marriage lasted three years. His wife had a child by another relationship named Nathan and they had a child of their own. Rookledge effectively took over the fathering role of Nathan during the marriage. In addition, he remained involved in the lives of the children after the marriage broke down and in fact, at the time of the death of Ms Holmes, they were apparently in his care while their mother was interstate with her then partner.
His adult life has been erratic. There has been occasional and different employment. What stands out, however, is his continued use of and abuse of illicit drugs. He has had periods where he has succeeded in avoiding their use but his psychological problems are such that he returns to them. His drug use has resulted in him breaking the law on a number of occasions. He has a prior conviction for burglary (two charges) on 10 July 1984 for which he received a $500 fine. There is then a 12 year gap before his next conviction on 24 April 1996. He was then convicted of a large number of charges relating to obtaining property by deception, and attempting to do so, and other dishonesty offences. He was placed on a suspended sentence and a 12 month community based order. On 29 March 1999 he was convicted of two charges of theft, burglary and making a false statement. He was again released on a 12 month community based order which required, inter alia, that he submit for alcohol, drug and psychiatric assessment and treatment as directed. On 30 August 1999 he was convicted of unlawful assault and damaging property and fined $500. On 22 April 2002 he was convicted on four counts of theft, failing to answer bail, possession of a prohibited weapon and going equipped to steal. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order in respect of those matters. On 17 June 2002 he was convicted on multiple charges of theft, failing to answer bail, various deception offences and causing injury recklessly and received a total effective sentence of 8 months imprisonment. On 11 December 2002 he was convicted of other dishonesty offences all of which occurred prior to the offences for which he was convicted in June of that year. Finally, on 10 June 2003 he received a three month sentence of imprisonment suspended for 12 months on a charge of theft and displaying false number plates.
Rookledge has also acted violently on a few occasions. One occasion occurred when Rookledge was living in a flat near that of the deceased. He thought she was going to attack his children and to avoid that he knocked her out. The result of that assault was an attendance at the local doctors to deal with a dislocated shoulder and concussion. On another occasion he “punched … out” a woman, Kerry, with whom he had had a relationship for 14 or 15 months. The incident terminated the relationship. In addition, in his discussions with Dr Glaser he mentioned that he had had a fight with a fellow female worker at his work place when he was aged about 21. He described himself as losing the plot “really badly” and that the police had to intervene. He acknowledged that he had been using some sort of substance but did not know what it was. He also described another occasion when he was out with a girl and ended up “putting his hands around her neck and beating the crap out of her … it wasn’t me”. On that occasion he acknowledged to Dr Glaser that he had been using amphetamines for four or five days previously.
Another matter of relevance to what occurred on the night in question is the sexual abuse of the prisoner’s stepson Nathan by another man, Steven, a man with whom the prisoner’s former wife lived after they separated. Nathan told Rookledge of the abuse and he tried to persuade Nathan to speak to the police about it. The incident brought back many memories for Rookledge as to his experiences as a child. The Department of Human Services intervened and Nathan’s mother was told that Steven had to move out or she would lose the children. Steven did move out but ended up living with Ms Holmes. Rookledge believed that he continued to sexually abuse Nathan. It also appears that Rookledge believed that Ms Holmes became aware that Steven was continuing to abuse Nathan but did not inform Rookledge. According to Rookledge, Steven also kidnapped Nathan and the other child and his ex-wife for a period. The police were not involved in that incident because his former wife was scared of Steven. The children were removed by Protective Services and placed in the care of Rookledge. Later Rookledge returned the children to his ex-wife. She had a new boyfriend and Rookledge was having difficulties with his drug use. It appears, however, that the issue of Ms Holmes providing a home for Steven and emotional support for him was a source of tension between Rookledge and the deceased and from time to time, while their friendship was maintained, they had heated arguments about it.
Returning to his psychological and drug problems, Rookledge was discharged from gaol in January 2003. He was depressed and lonely. His ex-wife provided him with accommodation initially, but he states that he found it very hard to stop using amphetamines and was doing so virtually every day. He was receiving medication from his local doctor Dr Cyngler, a continuation of the treatment he had been receiving in gaol. It comprised a mood stabiliser, Epilim, and an anti-depressant, Efexor. This appeared to help to settle him down. His condition, however, appears to have deteriorated to the point that three weeks prior to the murder of Ms Holmes he ceased the medication because he didn’t think it was working for him any more and he thought that using illegal drugs was better. He told Dr Cyngler that he had done so. He conceded that the doctor may have warned him about the consequences but he apparently swore at Dr Cyngler and walked out of the surgery. He concedes that treatment with Dr Cyngler was becoming quite difficult because he would make appointments to see him and deliberately not go. At about that time the Department of Human Services was also trying to link him to a specialist treatment program, Spectrum, through the Maroondah Hospital. In this volatile condition, he encountered Steven on a tram approximately one week before the murder of Ms Holmes. Nothing physical took place but words were exchanged. He was concerned about the state of Nathan who was showing signs of fragility. Rookledge says that he was talking to the Department of Human Services at about that time about getting help for Nathan. It seems, however, that his anger and resentment towards the victim over the help she had given to Steven remained and surfaced from time to time.
I am satisfied that on the day of and prior to the death of Ms Holmes, Rookledge had consumed approximately $250 worth of amphetamines.
I accept the analysis of Dr Glasser who has interviewed and assessed Rookledge as to the combination of factors that lead to the killing of Ms Holmes.
“The setting for the alleged offences thus included the following evidence:
A.his long standing feelings of rage directed towards females, particularly his mother,
B.the fact that his alleged victim was a female and was certainly older than him (leading to a reasonable hypothesis that she might well have reminded him of his mother in some way),
C.the fact that his alleged victim had helped to support (without revealing to him) a man who had sexually abused his own son (possibly reminding him of his own mother’s apparent pacifity in the face of abuse of him as a child),
D.his developing some form of emotional dependence on his alleged victim, despite his resentment of her, because he was one of the few supports available to him during a time of loneliness and social isolation,
E.his having recently learned of his son’s continuing distress regarding his sexual abuse which occurred around the same time as his sighting his son’s abuser,
F.the disinhibiting factors on the night of the large quantities of amphetamines he had consumed on the day, his cessation of medication which had possibly kept his behaviours under some sort of control (ceased three weeks prior to the offence) and the probable conversation he had with his alleged victim that night regarding his son’s welfare in related matters.
These various factors would have been more than enough to drive Mr Rookledge into a state of rage, emanating in an attack on his alleged victim. There seems to be considerable evidence that he wanted to hurt her and hurt her quite badly. “
Counsel for the Crown submitted that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the prisoner was under the influence of amphetamines at the time of the killing. I agree that the evidence is imprecise but it seems to me that a debate as to whether or not the amphetamines were actually affecting him at the time of the act of killing the deceased is not ultimately material. What is clear, I suggest, is that he had been abusing amphetamines for many years and, having taken himself off medication designed to stabilise his moods, while at the same time using amphetamines on a daily basis, his behaviour was likely to be volatile and unpredictable.[1] While knowing what he was doing and the nature and quality of his acts, and while able to subsequently act in a rational fashion, I am satisfied that a critical factor in the events occurring was his long standing abuse of amphetamines.
[1]I note the views expressed by Dr White in Freckleton and Selby, "Expert Evidence" (64.490), about the impact of regular daily patterns of use of amphetamines and how while with consistent purity, adverse effects such as paranoia can be kept to a minimum, such users may still present a danger to themselves and others and may become more irritable and easily provoked partly as a result of the large doses of stimulants but also because of chronic sleeping problems. I also note his comment (64.500) about depression and an unmotivated state resulting from frequent use of amphetamines.
In assessing the gravity of the offence, the Crown concedes that, despite the strange explanation for the presence of the knife by the bed, it cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that an intent to kill was formed at any time other than shortly prior to the attack occurring on the deceased. Thus, the Crown is not suggesting that the killing was premeditated in any sense. Nonetheless the crime committed is the gravest of crimes and its seriousness must be reflected in the sentence imposed. It was committed in a violent and brutal way. The post mortem and subsequent additional report reveals some 17 wounds with two significant penetrating stabbing wounds to the chest.
As to moral culpability, it is relevant, in my view, that his lengthy drug abuse, a consequence of deep seated problems flowing from an appalling childhood, affected his thinking and judgment at the time. This diminished, to a limited extent, his moral culpability.
I am satisfied that he has shown true remorse. It is true that he attempted to conceal his part in her death and this is, in itself, a matter of concern. But it is clear that he was greatly troubled by what had occurred. His remorse was not strong enough initially to overcome his desire for self preservation. By the time the police interviewed him a week later, however, his remorse had prevailed. He frankly confessed and co-operated with them. From his comments to the police, I am satisfied, that his co-operation flowed from his strong feelings of guilt and true remorse over what had occurred.
General deterrence is obviously a relevant sentencing concern in this case. There was an issue, however, as to the relevance of specific deterrence. Counsel for Rookledge submitted that it was a lesser issue than general deterrence because of Rookledge’s remorse rendering it unlikely that he would offend again. Counsel also submitted that there were prospects of rehabilitation, drawing attention to the fact that in prison he has now been placed in a position of responsibility mentoring drug offenders. He acknowledged that, in the past, attempts at rehabilitation had failed but argued that his drug problem had rendered him unreliable in those less disciplined and less controlled attempts.
Specific deterrence appears to me to be a significant sentencing consideration in this case. Rookledge’s history points to very deep seated problems and the failure on the part of Rookledge to take advantage of previous attempts to address his substance abuse because of those deep seated problems. In addition, there have been other occasions of violence as noted above.
At the same time, rehabilitation of this prisoner is plainly in the community interest. At some time he will return to society and it would plainly assist in protecting the community that steps be taken to address both the underlying psychological problems and his tendency to use drugs to help him cope with life. His past suggests that rehabilitation will be very difficult but it also contains some positive indications. Despite his appalling childhood, he appears to have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong and has shown himself a concerned parent at different times. Despite periods of suicidal thought, he has not given up.
Finally, in arriving at an appropriate sentence, I am required to give due weight and effect to Rookledge’s plea of guilty as a mitigating factor. While this was not made until recently, nonetheless it is a matter which is significant in that it has saved considerable time, inconvenience and costs and spared the mother and sister of the deceased the anguish of the hearing. As revealed by their victim impact statement, their distress is acute and ongoing.
To sum up, the offence was extremely serious and specific and general deterrence must be reflected in the sentence to be imposed. I am satisfied, however, that his long standing abuse of drugs was a factor in the commission of the offence and to a limited extent reduces the level of moral culpability. I accept that he has shown genuine, but not prompt, remorse and for that he is entitled to be treated with a degree of leniency. Remorse is also of particular significance on the question of his rehabilitation. That latter factor will be recognised particularly in the fixing of the minimum term. It must be faced, however, that the gravity of the offence, the particular need for specific deterrence and the need for general deterrence significantly limit the scope of the sentencing discretion. That having been said, the plea of guilty is a significant mitigating factor and warrants a term of imprisonment less than would otherwise have been imposed.
In all the circumstances, I have concluded that the appropriate term of imprisonment to be imposed is a term of 17 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.
---
---
2
0
0