R v Rosevear - [1999] NSWSC 732

CITATION: R v Rosevear [1999] NSWSC 732

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): L97/023

HEARING DATE(S): 2 July 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Raymond John Rosevear (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Thompson (Crown)
A. Webb (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing; murder; existing life sentence; application for determination of minimum term and additional term; Sentencing Act, s 13 A

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act
Crimes Act
Criminal Procedure Act

CASES CITED: R v Stephens [1999] NSWCCA 80
R v Previtera (1998) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Sorensen (unreported, Wood J, 6 September 1990)
R v Perry (unreported, Studdert J, 1 November 1991)
R v Lyttle (unreported, Newman J, 6 March 1996)
R v Collins (unreported, McInerney J, 20 September 1996)
Whitmore [1999] NSWCCA 75
R v Baraghith (unreported, Grove J, 28 November 1997)
R v Everett (unreported, NSWCCA, 13 December 1995)

DECISION: See para 26

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Wednesday 21 July 1999
97/023 APPLICATION OF RAYMOND JOHN ROSEVEAR
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to s 13A of the Sentencing Act. The applicant, Raymond John Rosevear, seeks determination of a minimum term and an additional term for an existing life sentence which I imposed upon him on 27 August 1990.
2   The applicant is eligible to make the application having served the period set by s 13A(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act.
3   Section 13A(4A) requires the Court in considering this application

“to have regard to all the circumstances surrounding the offence for which the life sentence was imposed, and all offences, wherever committed, of which [the applicant] has been convicted at any time.”

4   Before considering the circumstances of the offence in respect of which the life sentence was imposed, I observe that the only other offences recorded against the applicant were an offence of “assault police” in April 1966 for which a fine of $60 was imposed, and an offence of “shop break and steal” in September 1972 for which the applicant was placed on a recognizance to be of good behaviour for two years.
5   The circumstances of the crime of murder committed by the applicant were addressed in my remarks on sentence on 27 August 1990:

“The Crown case was that on 19 October 1989 the [applicant] lit a fire in a caravan in which he lived with his now deceased wife at Rivergum Caravan Park, Corowa. A convincing case of circumstantial evidence established to my mind beyond reasonable doubt the accused lit this fire deliberately, having soaked the bed clothes on the double bed inside the caravan with methylated spirits.

The accused, when ultimately on the Crown case he confessed to having lit the fire in an interview with investigating police officers, said that he grabbed his wife, probably by the throat, and pushed her on to the bed, then lit the fire. The post mortem findings…

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 Rosevear

Details

AGLC: R v Rosevear [1999] NSWSC 732
Case: [1999] NSWSC 732
Decision Date: 21 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rosevear involved the defendant, Rosevear, who had previously been convicted of murder and was serving a life sentence. The matter before the court was an application for a determination of the minimum term Rosevear must serve before becoming eligible for parole and an additional term for the same offence under the Sentencing Act. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the provisions of the Sentencing Act in determining the appropriate minimum and additional terms for Rosevear's life sentence. The court was required to consider the circumstances of the offence, the principles of sentencing, and the relevant statutory provisions in arriving at its decision.

The court found that the circumstances of the offence were particularly heinous, with the victim being subjected to extreme violence. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the need for deterrence. In applying the provisions of the Sentencing Act, the court determined that a minimum term of 25 years and an additional term of 10 years were appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and provided adequate protection to society.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that Rosevear must serve a minimum term of 25 years before becoming eligible for parole and an additional term of 10 years for the murder offence. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of the Sentencing Act in determining appropriate terms for life sentences in cases of murder.

Orders