Legal Research
Cases
Rozynski v The King

Rozynski v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 199 28 August 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0099

JOSHUA ROZYNSKI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 199
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 773 (Justice Champion)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder – Applicant shot deceased in back whilst deceased seated in car – Sentence indication of not more than 25 years’ imprisonment – Applicant sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with 17 years’ non-parole period – Whether judge erred in application of Bugmy principles – Whether head sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal refused.

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Herrmann (2021) 290 A Crim R 110; Hurst v The King [2023] VSCA 286; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Sabbatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr SJ Tovey
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams with Ms A Harrold
Solicitors
Applicant:	Balmer & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Taylor JA. For the reasons her Honour gives, I agree that the extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

TAYLOR JA:

Following a sentence indication given on 31 May 2023,[1] the applicant, on 5 June 2023, pleaded guilty to the murder of Daniel Eagle. The applicant was sentenced on 15 December 2023[2] as follows:
[1]R v Rozynski (No 1) [2023] VSC 288R (Champion J).
[2]R v Rozynski (No 2) [2023] VSC 773 (Champion J) (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence
Indictment M10636917
1	Murder[3]	Life imprisonment	24 years’ imprisonment
Total Effective Sentence:		24 years’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		17 years’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		992 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 29 years Non Parole-Period 24 years

[3]Contrary to Common Law.

The applicant now seeks an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the following grounds:
Ground 1: That the learned sentencing judge erred in his application of the ‘Bugmy’ principles by moderating the weight to be given to the applicant’s disadvantaged upbringing.
Ground 2: That the head-sentence and non-parole period imposed are, in all of the circumstances of the case, manifestly excessive.
The principles relevant to the granting of an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal are uncontroversial. Guided by where the interests of justice fall in any particular case, the Court will consider the reasons for the delay in seeking leave and the merits of the proposed grounds.[4] The reasons for the delay in this case were explained in an affidavit sworn by Sally Anne Vardy, the applicant’s solicitor, on…

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 Rozynski v The King

Details

AGLC: Rozynski v The King [2025] VSCA 199
Case: [2025] VSCA 199
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by the applicant, Rozynski, who was convicted of murder. Rozynski shot the deceased while the latter was seated in a car, and was initially indicated to receive a sentence of no more than 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant was ultimately sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen and that both the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles articulated in Bugmy v The Queen, which emphasise the importance of the offender’s moral culpability and the need for a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court considered the facts of the case, including the manner in which the offence was committed, and evaluated the trial judge’s assessment of the applicant’s moral culpability. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the Bugmy principles and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court also rejected the argument that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive, noting that it represented a substantial but not disproportionate portion of the overall sentence.

The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was dismissed. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

Orders