R v Rudolph [2023] NSWSC 181

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rudolph [2023] NSWSC 181 Hearing dates: 3 March 2023 Decision date: 03 March 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme AJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. Catchwords: SENTENCING — manslaughter – 13-week-old victim – where fatal injury caused by "vigorous" non-accidental shaking – being tired stressed and exhausted not mitigating – evidence of deprived and dysfunctional childhood – reduced moral culpability – no finding of remorse – potential for rehabilitation – reduction for early plea of guilty Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15E Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, ss 21A and 30E Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184; (2004) 147 A Crim R 520 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; (2014) 243 A Crim R 31 R v Shepherd [2010] NSWSC 154 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The King (Crown) Tre James Rudolph (Offender) Representation: Counsel: S Hughes (Crown) E McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender) File Number(s): 356206/2020

JUDGMENT 1. Tre James Rudolph is to be sentenced for the manslaughter of Jasmine Wilkes, a baby 13-weeks of age. It happened at Hamilton South, an inner suburb of Newcastle, on 4 August 2020. 2. On 8 December 2021 Mr Rudolph (the offender) was committed to stand trial on a charge of murder but on 31 October 2022 he entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter which the Crown accepted. 3. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years. It is an offence that can be committed in so many different ways that there is no range of sentences that should be imposed for various types of manslaughter. Attention must be focussed upon the unique facts and circumstances of the case at hand, guided by the maximum penalty (which is reserved for the worst examples of the offence) and the fact that all crimes of homicide are serious because they involve an attack upon the sanctity of human life.1 4. The deceased child in this case may be identified because there has been consent by the senior available next of kin, namely the child's mother. It remains necessary for there to be nothing published that would identify any other children who are referred to. [1] 5. It will be necessary to refer to a number of family members and to avoid repetitious mention of their surnames, and without intending any disrespect, they will often be referred to by their first names.