R v Rowe

Case [2019] NSWSC 1592 11 November 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rowe [2019] NSWSC 1592
Hearing dates: 11 October 2019
Date of orders: 11 November 2019
Decision date: 11 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
Sentenced for murder to imprisonment for 23 years with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – guilty plea – sentence – murder – victim impact statement – objective features – objective seriousness – intention to kill – short period of premeditation and planning – subjective features – criminal history – protection of community – remorse – moral culpability and mental disorder – prospects of rehabilitation – general deterrence – maximum penalty – standard non-parole period – special circumstances – orders
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Braithwaite v R [2005] NSWCCA 451
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Fardon v Attorney General for the State of Queensland (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
GG v R [2018] NSWCCA 280
Isaacs v R (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v AO (2003) 138 A Crim R 189; [2003] NSWCCA 43
R v Barbetta [2008] NSWSC 688
R v Booth [2014] NSWCCA 156
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Hall [2001] NSWCCA 202
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Hillsley (2006) 164 A Crim R 252; [2006] NSWCCA 312
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133
R v JK [2018] NSWSC 250
R v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47; [2000] NSWCCA 23
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
R v Loveridge (2014) 243 A Crim R 31; [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v Murnin (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 16 August 1985)
R v Nelson (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 25 June 1996)
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270;

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 [2019] NSWSC 1592
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1592
Decision Date: 11 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rowe, the defendant was convicted of the murder of a woman. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant following his guilty plea. The court was tasked with balancing the objective and subjective features of the crime to determine the appropriate punishment.

The court considered several legal issues, including the objective seriousness of the crime, the intention to kill, the period of premeditation and planning, the defendant's criminal history, the need for protection of the community, the defendant's remorse, moral culpability, mental disorder, prospects of rehabilitation, general deterrence, and the maximum penalty. The court also examined whether any special circumstances existed that could influence the sentence.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the relevant sentencing principles, taking into account the objective features of the crime, such as the intention to kill and the short period of premeditation and planning. The court also considered the subjective features, including the defendant's criminal history, remorse, moral culpability, mental disorder, prospects of rehabilitation, and general deterrence. The court acknowledged the victim impact statement, which highlighted the profound impact the crime had on the victim's family and friends. Ultimately, the court concluded that the maximum penalty was appropriate, and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court also made several special orders to ensure the protection of the community and to address the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders