[2017] NSWSC 1393

Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales

R v Rolfe [2017] NSWSC 1393 Rothman J The Supreme Court has sentenced Mr Timothy Rolfe for the murder of Mr Laurence Starling on 24 July 2014, following a plea of guilty on the basis of joint criminal enterprise. The Court also sentenced Mr Rolfe for a firearm offence, taking into account a Form 1, to which Mr Rolfe also pleaded guilty. The murder of Mr Starling occurred in circumstances described as a “bikie killing”, on 24 July 2014 outside of his business, The Chop Shop, which specialised in customising motorcycles and other motor vehicles, in West Gosford. The circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr Starling concern his acquisition of a custom-made motorcycle from Mr Field. Mr Field was involved in a long-running feud with a Mr Donnelly in relation to Mr Field marrying Mr Donnelly’s ex-partner. Mr Donnelly was allegedly a high-ranking member of the Terrigal chapter of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (“The Rebels”). The motorcycle in question was demanded, and taken from Mr Starling, by Mr Donnelly and his associates, as payment of a debt that was said to be owed arising from the feud. Threats were also made. Mr Starling made contact with Mr Field, who was incarcerated at the time, and who had connections with a rival motorcycle gang, in order to facilitate the return of the motorcycle. Mr Rolfe was contacted by his co-offender, Mr Weston, in early July 2014 about paying somebody a visit on the Central Coast about a bike, and to give this person, Mr Starling, a “touch up” and to collect what they could to the value of the bike. Mr Rolfe and his cooffender were members of the Penrith Chapter of the Rebels. At the time, Mr Rolfe is said to have been a new member, but not a nominee, and the co-offender is said to have been a Sergeant-At-Arms of the relevant Chapter of the Rebels. Mr Rolfe and the co-offender, along with other persons, attended the street on which Mr Starling’s business was located a number of times prior to the night of the murder. On 24 July 2014, Mr Rolfe, the co-offender and Witness F (also referred to as Import), travelled to West Gosford. Mr Rolfe had in his possession a 25 calibre gun which was loaded with six bullets, which was said to be brought along “just in case”, but he was not planning on using it. Witness F had with him a knife. The co-offender told Mr Rolfe that he had with him, a gun however Mr Rolfe did not see it until afterward. It was a .22 calibre. According to the evidence of Mr Rolfe, the plan was to give Mr Starling a “touch up” and to not worry about the property. The three got out of the car upon seeing Mr Starling starting This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.

to leave the premises of The Chop Shop. The co-offender and Witness F ran across the road however Mr Rolfe dropped his gun to the ground on getting out the car. When he looked up, he saw the offender and Witness F about 6 – 8 ft. away from Mr Starling. The co-offender pulled out a gun and shot Mr Starling twice in the stomach and groin area. The Court found that the fact that the offender and Mr Weston were carrying pistols and the third person, Witness F, was carrying a knife, each considered that really serious injury could be a consequence of the implementation of the agreement and that the death of Mr Starling was a contemplated consequence. The Court also sentenced Mr Rolfe for an offence for the possession of a firearm with a Form 1 offence for ammunition possession to which Mr Rolfe entered a plea of guilty. The Court does not accept that the offender, Mr Rolfe, was acting under duress. The Court does accept that Mr Rolfe’s view was that if he were not to accept the role given to him by the officers, he would have been the subject of retaliation or discipline. Mr Rolfe has since parted ways with the Rebels, which could have occurred prior to the offending. The Court accepts the Psychological Report of Ms Hare which was tendered on sentence, outlining that a prison term would be psychologically challenging to Mr Rolfe, particularly given his need for protective custody and for witness protection prior to serving his prison term. The report also disclosed a history of childhood trauma. Given Mr Rolfe’s criminal history, he is not entitled to the leniency which would be shown to a first time offender. Mr Rolfe gave evidence at his sentencing hearing. The Court found that Mr Rolfe shows genuine remorse and also has good prospects of rehabilitation if properly treated. The Court found that the murder, as a bikie retribution killing, is well above the mid-range, however Mr Rolfe’s culpability is less than that of the shooter, Mr Weston. The Court accepts that despite the fact that Mr Rolfe was carrying a weapon, he did not expect the shooting to occur. The Court concluded that the firearm offence is also serious and is midrange or slightly below mid-range. The Court took into consideration the fact of Mr Rolfe’s moral culpability being less than that of the shooter, Mr Weston, and further that parity between the offenders must be taken into account on sentence. The Court considered the assistance that Mr Rolfe provided to authorities, describing it as quite exceptional, including the giving of evidence at the trial of Mr Weston without any inducement and in circumstances where such assistance places himself and his family at risk. The Court found that the evidence given by Mr Rolfe was complete, truthful and reliable. The Court found that, in light of Mr Rolfe’s remorse and assistance, it is not considered that specific deterrence is as significant as it might otherwise be, however general deterrence continues to be an issue. The Court, taking into account the objective and subjective factors, and in particular, the parity with the co-offender, started with a head sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment for the offence of murder. The Court found that there are grounds for special circumstances requiring a longer period on parole to assist with Mr Rolfe’s rehabilitation. After discount of slightly more than 50%, for the assistance that was provided to the authorities and the plea of guilty, the Court sentenced Mr Rolfe to a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months imprisonment for the murder offence.

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.

For the firearms offence, taking into account the Form 1, the Court took the view that it did not add significantly to the total criminality and sentenced Mr Rolfe to a largely concurrent non-parole period of 5 years’ and 6 months imprisonment, with the remainder of the term of 1 year and 10 months.

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.