R v Rumsby (No 6) - [2023] NSWSC 916

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rumsby (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 916
Hearing dates: 4 and 7 August 2023
Date of orders: 7 August 2023
Decision date: 07 August 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – after trial – attempt to choke with intent to have sexual intercourse without consent – victim an 18-year old female attacked on the street outside her home in early hours of morning – offence aggravated by physical violence, injuries and threats of death – high objective gravity
CRIME – sentencing – after trial – murder – victim a 17-year old girl walking home at night from a party – attacked for sexual purposes and killed by suffocation – high objective gravity conceded
CRIME – sentencing – offences committed in 1998 and 1999 – necessary to have regard to sentencing patterns at the time of offending as recent legislation does not apply – offender with limited subjective case – Bugmy factors reduce moral culpability but conceded only to a limited extent – age, ill-health and reduced life expectancy but need to impose sentence proportionate to gravity of offending

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 37
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Life Sentences) Amendment Act 1989 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44
Justice Act 1902 (NSW), s 125B

Cases Cited:
Geraghty v R [2023] NSWCCA 47
Hordern v R [2019] NSWCCA 210
R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815
Ryan v R; Coulter v R [2013] NSWCCA 175

Texts Cited:
Keane and Poletti, Sentenced Homicides in New South Wales 1994-2001, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Monograph 23, January 2004

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Craig Henry Rumsby (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Carr SC (Crown)
N Broadbent with Z Alderton (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 234445/2020

JUDGMENT

Craig Henry Rumsby was found guilty by a jury at Dubbo on 30 June 2023 of crimes against young women that occurred in Gulgong in January 1998 and February 1999.
The crimes are the attempted choking of an 18-year old woman (who will be referred to as “LS”) with intent to have sexual intercourse without her consent and the murder of Michelle Bright.^[1]

Circumstances of the offending

1. Ms Bright was aged 17 at the time but there has been consent by her family to her being publicly identified.

Gulgong

Gulgong is an historic town on the western side of the Central Tablelands of the State, some 300km north-west of Sydney and 30km north of Mudgee. In the late 1990s it had population of about 2000.

How these crimes from long ago were solved

It may be useful first to say something about how crimes committed so long ago were solved by an investigation which culminated with the arrest of the offender on 11 August…

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 Rumsby (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Rumsby (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 916
Case: [2023] NSWSC 916
Decision Date: 07 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Rumsby, faced sentencing following a conviction for two serious offences: an attempted sexual assault in 1998 and murder in 1999. The victim in the first offence was an 18-year-old female who was attacked on the street outside her home, with the appellant attempting to choke her with the intent to have sexual intercourse without her consent. The second offence involved the death of a 17-year-old girl who was walking home from a party when she was attacked for sexual purposes and subsequently killed by suffocation. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for these grave crimes.

The central legal issue was to determine the appropriate sentences for the crimes, taking into account the high objective gravity of both offences, the appellant's subjective circumstances, and the Bugmy factors. The court had to balance the need for a sentence that reflects the severity of the crimes with considerations of the appellant's age, ill-health, and reduced life expectancy. The court also needed to consider the sentencing patterns of the time the offences were committed, as recent legislation did not apply.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed the gravity of the crimes, acknowledging the high objective gravity due to the physical violence, injuries inflicted, and threats of death. The court also considered the appellant's limited subjective circumstances, including his age, ill-health, and reduced life expectancy. While these factors reduced the appellant's moral culpability to some extent, the court concluded that they should only be taken into account to a limited degree. The court ultimately imposed sentences that were proportionate to the gravity of the offending, ensuring that the sentences reflected both the severity of the crimes and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The final orders of the court confirmed the sentences imposed by the lower court, taking into account all the relevant factors. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for each offence, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The court's decision provided a clear and reasoned approach to sentencing in cases of high objective gravity, balancing the need for punishment with consideration of the offender's personal circumstances.

Orders