The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 10 months.
Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – where offender homeless and itinerant – where deceased not previously known to the offender – whether offender appreciated his actions posed a risk of serious injury – whether offender left the deceased in need of medical assistance – offer to plead guilty before committal – significant background of deprivation and disadvantage – effect of background on moral culpability – moral culpability and requirement for general and specific deterrence diminished – genuine remorse
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Universal Law (Offender)
File Number(s):
2022/45909
Publication restriction:
Nil
JUDGMENT
The offender, Rodney Stephen Rose, is before the court for sentence for one count of manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) for which the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment and for which there is no standard non-parole period.
Mr Rose was 50 years old at the time of the offending, which occurred in the home of Mr Steven Ponton (“the deceased”) in Ballina in the afternoon of 5 February 2022. Mr Rose pleaded guilty to this count on 3 February 2025, which was the first day of his trial.
I am grateful to Ms Oliver who appeared on behalf of the Crown and to Mr Watts who…
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 Rose (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rose (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 88
Case
[2025] NSWSC 88
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal by the respondent against his conviction for manslaughter was heard in the High Court. The deceased died from injuries inflicted by the respondent, who had been involved in an argument with the deceased prior to the incident. The respondent's claim of self-defence was rejected by the jury, leading to his conviction. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in considering the respondent's background of deprivation and disadvantage as a mitigating factor. The court had to determine if this background diminished the respondent's moral culpability and, consequently, the need for general and specific deterrence.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the respondent's background. The respondent's history of deprivation and disadvantage was relevant to assessing his moral culpability and the need for deterrence. The judge appropriately took into account the respondent's genuine remorse and offer to plead guilty before committal. The court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of these factors was consistent with the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's conviction and sentence.
The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of understanding the context of the offender's background when assessing moral culpability. The respondent's history of disadvantage and homelessness was seen as a mitigating factor, reducing his moral culpability and the need for deterrence. The court also noted the respondent's remorse and his attempt to resolve the matter before trial. These factors, combined with the lack of a previous relationship between the offender and the deceased, were considered in the sentencing process.
No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The conviction and sentence for manslaughter were upheld.