R v Rozynski (No 2) - [2023] VSC 773

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0048

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
JOSHUA ROZYNSKI	Accused

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 October 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 December 2023
DATE OF RULING:	19 December 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rozynski (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 773

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Dispute over drugs — Car chase on public roads — Victim shot at close range with sawn‑off shotgun — Serious example of murder — Modest criminal history — Guilty plea — Remorse — Dysfunctional and turbulent upbringing — Guarded rehabilitation prospects — Sentence indication given — General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment important — Specific deterrence and community protection important — R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 — Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	N Hutton A Malik	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	S Tovey	Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Joshua Rozynski, on 5 June 2023, you pleaded guilty to murdering Daniel Eagle on 27 March 2021. You shot and killed Mr Eagle with a single shotgun blast to his right upper back, while he was seated in the front passenger seat of a vehicle that had just been involved in a collision in Corio.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. Murder is a standard sentence offence.

Background

Mr Eagle was 44 years old at the time of his death. He resided in Norlane with his partner, AG, and their children.

At the time of Mr Eagle’s death, you were 26 years of age and were living in Corio with your partner and children. You are the step‑son of Scott Perry and the half‑brother of Zachary Perry, both of whom were present at events preceding the murder of Mr Eagle.

You and Mr Eagle were known to each other.

Circumstances of the offending
Background and first confrontation

In the early hours of the morning of 27 March 2021, Mr Eagle, in company with Matthew Gibbons and Kerubino Angok [‘his associates’], arranged to purchase drugs from your step‑father and half‑brother.

Mr Eagle made a small down‑payment on this purchase, but before he was to receive the drugs, he decided to cancel the deal. Mr Eagle and his associates then attempted to recoup the deposit they had made.

According to Mr Eagle’s associates, the drug deal was an attempt to set up your half‑brother so that Mr Eagle could confront and assault him or your step‑father.

This led to a dispute between, on the one hand, your step‑father and half‑brother, and on the other hand, Mr Eagle and his associates. Damage was caused to your step‑father’s home in Corio. Some time later, shots were fired into Mr Eagle’s home at around 5:10am. Mr Eagle was not at home when this…

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 Rozynski (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Rozynski (No 2) [2023] VSC 773
Case: [2023] VSC 773
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Rozynski, the Supreme Court of Victoria addressed the sentencing of the defendant for the crime of murder. The incident arose from a dispute over drugs, which culminated in a car chase on public roads, during which the victim was fatally shot at close range with a sawn-off shotgun. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the gravity of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, his guilty plea, and his expression of remorse. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's dysfunctional and turbulent upbringing, as well as his guarded prospects for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the significance of the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment in the context of a serious example of murder. The court also considered the importance of specific deterrence and community protection in sentencing. The court examined previous cases such as R v Verdins and Bugmy v The Queen, and statutory provisions from the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to guide its decision. The court balanced these factors against the defendant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, after thorough consideration of the aforementioned factors, determined that the sentence should reflect the severity of the crime and the need to uphold the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The court also recognised the importance of specific deterrence and community protection. In light of these considerations, the court found that a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period was appropriate. The court took into account the defendant's guilty plea and remorse, as well as his personal background and rehabilitation prospects. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and community protection.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment with a specified non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the considerations outlined above. The court's decision was informed by the principles of criminal law and sentencing, as well as the specific circumstances of the defendant and the victim. The court's ruling provided clarity on the appropriate sentence for this serious offence, taking into account both the needs of justice and the individual circumstances of the case.

Orders