R v Rowe - [2018] VSC 490

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0097

THE QUEEN

JOBY ROWE

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 August 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rowe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 490

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Child homicide – Not guilty plea – Death of three-month-old baby by shaking – Accused father of deceased – Isolated incident – Accused otherwise devoted parent – No prior criminal history – Excellent prospects for rehabilitation – No signs of remorse – Delay – General deterrence – Denunciation – Punishment – Sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years – 484 days pre-sentence detention.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Ihle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Fitzgerald	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Rowe, you have been convicted by a jury of one charge of Child Homicide, a level 3 offence that carries with it a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Your daughter Alanah was born on 31 May 2015. She was three months’ old at the time of her death. At this time, you and Alanah’s mother, Stephanie Knibbs, had been living together for about a year in a unit in Pink Cliff’s Road, Heathcote. Stephanie’s five year old daughter also lived with you.

Alanah was born six weeks premature, and for the first two weeks of her life was admitted to the Special Care Unit at Bendigo Base Hospital. She came home small, but otherwise healthy. She was bottle fed from this stage.

You were actively involved in caring for Alanah. She had regular health and development check-ups from a maternal and child health nurse, Ms Elizabeth Hudspeth.

It is common ground between you and the prosecution that you were a caring and devoted parent. Both Ms Hudspeth and Ms Robyn McCarthy (a midwife) observed as much, as did Stephanie Knibbs and Stephanie’s stepmother, Joy Knibbs. You contributed to all aspects of Alanah’s care, including feeding her, changing her and taking an active interest in her development. You contributed to her green health book and penned questions for Stephanie Knibbs to put to Ms Hudspeth. Stephanie Knibbs trusted you to care for Alanah and, up until 29 August, your parenting was beyond reproach.

In the last week of her life, Alanah had been observed to be more unsettled than usual and increasingly irritable. You were working during this week. There is no evidence to suggest that you were having difficulty coping with this increasing irritability, and your text message exchanges with Stephanie Knibbs suggest, if anything, that you were coping well throughout this last week.

On the morning of Saturday 29 August, Alanah was unsettled and as you drove Stephanie Knibbs to work at the Union Hotel, Alanah remained crying and irritable. This persisted while you stopped at an ATM and continued until you reached the hotel.…

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 Rowe

Details

AGLC: R v Rowe [2018] VSC 490
Case: [2018] VSC 490
Decision Date: 31 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rowe, the defendant, Mr. Rowe, was charged with the manslaughter of his three-month-old child. The dispute arose from an incident where the baby died after being violently shaken, leading to fatal injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mr. Rowe pleaded not guilty, and the court was tasked with determining his sentence.

The court needed to address several legal issues, including the principles of sentencing in cases of child homicide, the relevance of the accused's personal circumstances, and the need to balance retribution and rehabilitation. The primary considerations were the gravity of the offence, the accused's otherwise exemplary conduct as a parent, and his lack of remorse. The court also had to consider the principle of general deterrence and the importance of denunciation in cases of violent child abuse.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that the circumstances surrounding the death warranted a severe punishment to denounce the act and deter similar offences. Despite the mitigating factors, such as the accused's otherwise devoted parenting and lack of prior criminal history, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court sentenced Mr. Rowe to nine years in prison, with a non-parole period of six years, taking into account the 484 days he had already spent in pre-sentence detention. This decision balanced the need for punishment and rehabilitation with the circumstances of the tragic event.

Orders