//
[2025] NSWSC 1147
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-10-03
Harrison CJ at CL
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hanson [2025] NSWSC 1147
Hearing dates: 05 September 2025
Date of orders: 03 October 2025
Decision date: 03 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision: Sentence to a non-parole term of imprisonment of 21 years commencing on 19 September 2021 and expiring on 18 September 2042 with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 18 September 2049.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – murder – jury trial – domestic violence murder – plea of guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder – where the jury found the offender guilty of murder – where facts consistent with verdict are agreed with one exception – where murder occurred in a remote location – where offender engaged in a serious and sustained assault of the victim – whether the court is satisfied of the facts beyond reasonable doubt – whether the offender acted with an intent to kill – above the mid-range of objective seriousness
SENTENCING – limited factual dispute – whether the offender used a ligature to strangle the victim – ligature marks on back and side of victim’s neck – where the Crown submits the marks are evidence of an attempted strangulation – where it is unclear how the marks were in-fact caused
SENTENCING – subjective considerations on sentence – where the offender’s early life was characterised by violence and alcohol abuse within the family home – difficult schooling experience – where the offender has a history of substance abuse and suffers from personality disorder – whether there should be a moderation to moral culpability
SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – facilitation of justice – where significant matters were dealt with by agreed facts – trial conducted with focus on relevant issues – remorse – where offender did not give sworn evidence – general deterrence in circumstances of a domestic violence murder
SENTENCING – related offences – s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – where dealing with the offences would not be in the interests of justice
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Rohen James Hanson (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s): 2021/269813; 2021/267125
Publication restriction: Nil
HIS HONOUR: Rohen James Hanson stood trial on 30 June 2025 charged with the murder of his partner Dee Annear at Bulga Forest on or about 18 September 2021. To that charge, Mr Hanson pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty of murder. The Crown did not accept that plea. On 16 July 2025 the jury found Mr Hanson guilty of murder. He is now to be sentenced for that offence.
Murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment.
I am required for the purpose of sentencing Mr Hanson to determine the facts that are consistent with the jury’s verdict. The applicable principles that I must apply are well known and need not be repeated. With one exception, to which I will return, it is agreed that the following facts are consistent with the verdict of guilty.
Ms Annear was 34 years old at the time of her death. In 2014, she had been hospitalised for a number of months after a serious car accident. She received a compensation payout as a result of the accident.
Mr Hanson was born in January 1983. He had been in a relationship with Ms Annear since approximately 2017. He was 38 years old at the time of her death.
The evidence at trial established that Mr Hanson had a tendency to assault Ms Annear. Several witnesses gave evidence that they had seen him do so on a number of different occasions during the course of the relationship. In 2019, Mr Hanson pleaded guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order. He was also subject to an enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Order in place until 28 November 2021. The ADVO was in force when Mr Hanson killed Ms Annear.
Mr Hanson and Ms Annear went camping at Bulga State Forest on Tuesday 14 September 2021. They stayed at a logger’s hut situated remotely in the forest.
At some point during the evening of Friday 17 September 2021 or the following morning, Mr Hanson crashed his Holden utility down an embankment whilst heading east on Blue Knob Forest Road in the direction of the logger’s hut. This occurred approximately 3km from the hut.
The circumstances in which Mr Hanson was driving the vehicle by himself back towards the hut are unknown. Mr Hanson suggested in his second police interview that he had argued with Ms Annear about going home early, and that he drove to a lookout for about twenty minutes to scare her, before driving back towards the hut when he crashed. The vehicle did not collide with any object and did not sustain damage that was consistent with a significant impact. Mr Hanson walked back to the logger’s hut following the collision.
After returning to the hut, Mr Hanson engaged in a serious and sustained assault of Ms Annear. At some stage during the assault, her head forcefully struck the southern wall of the hut, leaving a hole approximately 400mm in diameter. Forensic examination of the hut revealed Ms Annear’s blood on the door, the floor, the fireplace, and on furniture, among other locations. Ms Annear suffered a number of serious injuries as the result of the assault. These included a blunt force head injury that produced a left-side subdural haematoma associated with the gradual collection of blood in Ms Annear’s subdural space, exerting pressure on her brain, leading to herniation and ultimately causing her death.
I am satisfied of the above facts beyond reasonable doubt. That finding should not be misunderstood as an acceptance by me of the truth of the matters that Mr Hanson told the police, but as an acceptance only of the fact that he spoke the words attributed to him. Similarly, I do not find that any of the words said by Mr Hanson to have been uttered by Ms Annear to Mr Hanson were in fact spoken by her. More generally, but to the same effect, I do not accept as true or otherwise believe anything said by Mr Hanson to the police in his interviews or to anyone else, such as members of the Rural Fire Service, unless it is obviously true or independently verifiable, such as his name and date of birth, or corroborated by a document or evidence from other witnesses to the same event.
Mr Hanson has by his plea of guilty to manslaughter admitted that he killed Ms Annear. I am satisfied, upon the facts that I have found to be consistent with the jury’s verdict, that he did so with at least the intention of causing Ms Annear very serious injury. As noted earlier, there is a contest with respect to whether Mr Hanson killed Ms Annear with the intention of causing her death. That contest revolves around, although not exclusively, the evidence of what have been referred to as the ligature marks on the back and sides of Ms Annear’s neck in combination with the nature and extent of her other physical injuries. Simply stated, it is the Crown’s case that Ms Annear’s injuries, apart from the marks on her neck, are so severe that they should satisfy me that Mr Hanson must have inflicted them with the intention of causing death. Mr Hanson, on the contrary, contends that those injuries cannot support a conclusion to the criminal standard that he intended any more than to inflict really serious injury upon her.
The Crown contends further that its submission, about the conclusion I should reach concerning Mr Hanson’s intention when he inflicted those injuries, is fortified by what the Crown maintains is evidence of attempted strangulation. Although the forensic pathologists agree that the marks on Ms Annear’s neck were, or would appear clearly to have been, caused by the application of a restrictive force to her neck using a rope or cord, those opinions are necessarily only hypotheses as the evidence is otherwise entirely silent about how the marks were caused in fact. Without resiling from my conclusion that Mr Hanson cannot be believed except subject to the limitations I have mentioned, none of his several versions of what occurred in the hut when he killed Ms Annear contains any express or implied reference to the use by him of a rope or a cord around her neck.
It is also significant that the marks on Ms Annear’s neck do not entirely encircle it. There are no marks at the front of her neck in or near the vicinity of her laryngeal bones or cartilage or elsewhere on the surface of the skin under her chin. Nor was any damage to the anatomy of the throat discovered at post mortem examination. Any attempted strangulation might be expected to cause marks or damage of this kind. I am however satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the marks shown in Ex CCC are ligature marks that were caused by Mr Hanson intentionally applying force to Ms Annear’s neck using a rope or cord.
The state of mind in which murder is committed is directly relevant to determining the objective seriousness of the crime, but it is not the only relevant consideration: Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28 at [180].
The following factors are relevant in the assessment of the objective seriousness of this murder.
First, Ms Annear was a 34 year old woman, 160cm tall and weighed 62 kilograms. Her stature and relative strength meant that she was likely to have been easily overpowered by Mr Hanson and at a correspondingly significant physical disadvantage in defending herself from his sustained attack upon her.
Secondly, Ms Annear was killed in an isolated logger’s cabin, many kilometres from the nearest town or village and without any chance of summoning assistance from anyone. Phone reception was also unreliable without travelling from the hut to higher ground, effectively meaning that none was available.
Thirdly, Mr Hanson and Ms Annear were in a long-term relationship. Although that relationship had been characterised by previous episodes of violence, none had risen to the levels of violence that occurred on this occasion. The unexpected escalation of the violence would have been particularly frightening.
Fourthly, Ms Annear was unarmed at the time of the attack and it was unprovoked. I do not believe and specifically reject any suggestion arising from the answers given by Mr Hanson in his police interviews that Ms Annear was in any sense an aggressor or armed with a bottle with which she struck him. I am not satisfied that Ms Annear did anything to contribute to her death or that she inflicted any significant injury upon Mr Hanson during the assault.
Fifthly, Ms Annear’s injuries, to which I have earlier referred, were numerous and severe. He death was not instantaneous or the result of a single blow. On the contrary, it is clear from the evidence that Ms Annear died as the result of a sustained attack involving the repeated infliction of serious injuries leading to intracranial swelling and herniation, causing a loss of consciousness and death over a period of time not less than 25 minutes and potentially extending over some hours.
The Crown accepted that the offence “was not particularly well planned”. It seems to me more likely to have been completely unplanned and the result of a spontaneous eruption or loss of self-control that may have been fomenting for some time. That spontaneity is also consistent with my finding that Mr Hanson acted with no more than an intention to inflict really serious injury, a conclusion clearly supported by the nature and extent of the injuries that were inflicted.
I accept the Crown’s submission that Ms Annear died in terrifying circumstances. In my opinion, Mr Hanson’s offence is a very significant example of domestic violence murder, and above the mid-range of objective seriousness.
Mr Hanson is currently 42 years old and was 38 years old at the time of the offence. The elder of two children, he was initially raised in Bargo until the age of 7 years when his family moved to Forster. His early life was characterised by his father's alcohol abuse and regular violence to the family members including him. This violence was described by Mr Sheehan in his report as “poorly controlled” and included “hitting him with objects, throwing him against the wall, or choking him”. Mr Hanson also regularly witnessed his mother being beaten by his father and at one stage was required to give evidence in court against his father in domestic violence proceedings.
Mr Hanson's parents separated when he was 11. He continued to see his father and suffer violence at his hands. He continued this difficult relationship with his father until the age of 27 years when Mr Hanson was reported to police for an alleged assault upon his father. The pair have not spoken since.
Following the parental separation, Mr Hanson remained with his mother and sister. They have had what he describes as a complex and uneasy relationship. He moved out of home when he was 15 years old to distance himself from them. He quickly returned to the family home and remained with his mother until the age of 18 years. He now rarely communicates with his sister although has ongoing contact with his mother who continues to offer her support.
Over his early adult years, Mr Hanson has been in four significant intimate relationships. All relationships have been unstable with the last three following a pattern of increasing instability coupled with a degree of violence. Mr Hanson describes himself as “needy and insecure” in relationships which are generally formed very quickly with partners who share his substance abuse problems. It appears that he has belatedly recognised that he has a problem in relationships.
Mr Hanson has two children from a previous relationship. The mother of those children was unable to care for them due to her substance abuse issues and their ongoing care fell initially to Mr Hanson and then to his mother who continues to raise them.
"[69] ... I am not prepared to accept that an offender who has the start in life that the respondent had bears equal moral responsibility with one who has had what might be termed a ‘normal’ or ‘advantaged’ upbringing. Common sense and common humanity dictate that such a person will have fewer emotional resources to guide his (or her) behavioural decisions. I should not be taken as implying that such a person bears no moral responsibility; but I consider that the DPP's submission significantly underestimates the impact of a dysfunctional childhood. Indeed, it sits uneasily with the immediately preceding acknowledgement that his upbringing had been ‘tragic and dysfunctional’. That his background is a relevant consideration affording some (although limited) mitigation is entirely consistent with the approach taken by Wood J (as he then was) in R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58, a decision which has repeatedly been followed in this Court. If that were not so, there would be no purpose in sentencing courts receiving, as they invariably do, evidence concerning the personal background of offenders."
Schooling was difficult for Mr Hanson. He reports that he felt tormented and rejected which led to him being involved in numerous fights with his peers resulting in several suspensions and expulsion. He felt rejected by conventional children and therefore gravitated towards the company of other troubled children. He was described as impulsive and inattentive. He was regularly in trouble for misbehaviour.
When aged 7 or 8 years, Mr Hanson was the victim of sexual abuse from a teacher which further worsened his behaviour, leading to ongoing truancy and using cannabis. This behaviour was not reported at the time, with Mr Hanson believing that “this is what happens to naughty boys”.
He left school early in Year 11 to pursue employment. Following school, Mr Hanson commenced a motor mechanic apprenticeship but discontinued after approximately six months. He then undertook a boat building apprenticeship which he enjoyed, although he struggled with the theoretical component of the course and he discontinued it prior to completion. He has subsequently worked in several short term unskilled positions. He has not worked in the community since 2015.
Since being in custody Mr Hanson has generally maintained employment. He is presently employed in a trusted position within the Correctional Centre’s furniture shop.
Mr Hanson's substance habits (alcohol and cannabis) commenced at age 12 to 13 with daily cannabis use continuing throughout his life. Stimulant use commenced at 18 years of age and was the drug of choice for some years. By his mid-20s, Mr Hanson was consuming excessive and hazardous amounts of alcohol in the vicinity of 15 drinks per day. He developed a dependence upon alcohol at that time. There is a strong correlation between his alcohol use and his domestic violence. His substance abuse continued up until his arrest and continues presently whilst in custody. He is now dependant on Buprenorphine which has led to his institutional maladjustment during his present incarceration.
Although his substance abuse issues are longstanding, Mr Hanson has never received any intensive treatment for this as he acknowledges that he has never previously accepted that he has a problem in that regard. He is now awaiting the result of his recent application to be included onto the Buvidal programme. Mr Sheehan considered that such an inclusion is a positive development and is Mr Hanson's best chance of ceasing to use non-prescribed substances. Since being in custody, Mr Hanson has completed the Remand Addictions Programme.
“He presents with a pervasive pattern of instability of affect and marked impulsivity beginning in his teenage years and characterised by affective instability, impulsivity, suicidality, anger problems and transient stress related psychotic symptoms. He displays a pattern of unstable and intense personal relationships. This is in the context of significant trauma experienced particularly childhood sexual and physical abuse.”
“Mr Hanson's relationship dysfunction (particularly the pattern of intense idealisation followed by intense hostility), impulsivity and anger dysregulation, are classic features of borderline personality, and are direct contributors to his domestic violence history.”
“These features have persisted throughout his life and have continued to undermine him in every way, forming the basis for a pathological personality structure that predisposes him to self-defeating behaviours, lashing out against himself and others. He has lived his life reacting impulsively (and often dramatically) to transient mood states, and much of his problematic behaviour (including his aggression and substance abuse) could be described as having occurred within that context. It follows that my expert opinion is that Mr Hanson's personality disorder has contributed to his current offence in a substantial way, through intense discord, grievance, and disproportionate reactive anger, further disinhibited through alcohol intoxication.”
The trial was listed with an estimate of four weeks. The evidence ultimately occupied only eight days of court time. Significant matters were dealt with by way of agreed facts.
There was never any dispute concerning the fact that Mr Hanson inflicted the fatal injuries and there was no dispute over the difficult history between him and Ms Annear. Mr Hanson did not contest evidence that was inimical to him given by witnesses speaking of his violent relationship with Ms Annear. Cross-examination of most witnesses was concise and, with the exception of challenged forensic evidence and one tendency witness, relatively brief.
The Crown accepted that it would be open to me to reduce the penalty to be imposed upon Mr Hanson given the way in which the trial was conducted, including agreed facts and the focus on relevant issues. That included an abandonment of any reliance upon either substantial impairment or extreme provocation. However, the Crown submitted that any reduction in the sentence to be imposed should be minor to ensure that it is not unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence: s 22A(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
It was submitted on behalf of Mr Hanson that there is evidence of his remorse and increasing insight. Mr Hanson told Dr Chew, a consultant psychiatrist, whose report is dated 1 May 2023, that he was "... really messed up about losing [his] partner" and that he ruminated about her and was missing her. He told Mr Sheehan, a forensic psychologist, whose report is dated 12 August 2025, of his love for Ms Annear and the fact that he never meant to kill her. The distress caused by her death was also said to be apparent in the interviews he gave to the police that were played to the jury during the trial.
Mr Hanson wrote to the Court in the following terms:
“Your Honour,
I am writing this letter to express my deepest remorse for my actions, behaviour and the harm I have caused to Dee’s family Carolyne, Dean, Taylor, Brandon and John Butt. I understand that my behaviour ’n actions was unacceptable and that it has had significant impact on their lives. I take full responsibility for my actions and that I am committed to making amends.
I have acted in a shameful, despicable, disgusting manner and are truly disgusted with myself and have to live with these forever lasting moments in my mind for the rest of my life which haunt me every night trying to sleep. I miss Dee every day since and wish we never ended like this, we had plans for the future and loved each other deeply and never spent a day apart. We unfortunately had a miscarriage a year before and it made things hard for Dee ‘n I to understand why, and put strain on the relationship further. I miss my daughters dearly everyday wishing I was there in their lives. I have been grieving since about losing my partner Dee. I did truly, deeply love ‘n adore and still do. I wish Dee was still here with us to comfort and support me cuddle ‘n tickle my back, I miss her smell and her blunt funny quotes and all the good and beautiful memories we made together. I can only imagine regretfully what Dee’s family has been put through ‘cause of me.
I deeply ‘n honestly regret my actions ‘n decisions that have left a huge hole in everyone’s hearts and made people resent me. I have since turned to God and refreshed my faith ‘n go to church every week praying for forgiveness and pray for a better future and change of making decisions that intoxicate life. No more drinking no more drugs have been big factor. I understand that my actions have had serious consequences and I am committed to doing everything in my power to address the harm that I have caused. I am grateful for the opportunity to express my remorse and take steps towards making things right for the future.”
Mr Hanson did not give evidence in the sentencing proceedings. The Crown submitted that any expressions of remorse that are unsupported by sworn evidence cannot be given much weight.
I am not critical of Mr Hanson’s decision. Remorse in the shadow of the inevitable imposition of a term of imprisonment is notoriously difficult to assess. Convicted men and women are routinely and perhaps understandably accused of expressing no more than opportunistic and self-serving sentiments touted as remorse when it is entirely understandable that their own particular and personal circumstances of regret are not easily distinguishable, either by them or by an objective bystander, such as a sentencing judge, from genuine expressions of remorse for which they are entitled to be given credit. To a large extent, the assessment of the true value of a statement given in literally remorseful terms is more often than not a function of the predisposition of the audience to whom it is made.
I have earlier discounted the believability of Mr Hanson’s recollections concerning the death of Ms Annear. However, the present inquiry is different. He is in my view entitled to the benefit of what he has said in his letter and elsewhere for sentencing purposes. I do not consider that I could legitimately conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hanson’s words of remorse are not authentic.
The prevalence and regrettable notoriety attending cases of domestic violence means that sentences for crimes such as the present speak loudly and clearly about the courts’ attitudes to violence against intimate partners. General deterrence has a significant role to play in the present circumstances, although I acknowledge the fact that this conclusion must accommodate the relevance of Mr Hanson’s documented personality disorder. I am on the contrary not persuaded that Mr Hanson’s particular situation calls for any specifically deterrent considerations in the sentence I intend to impose. In company with the prospects of rehabilitation, Mr Hanson will be almost 60 years of age before he becomes entitled to release on parole and will in all likelihood be much changed by the experience of a lengthy prison sentence and almost certainly disinclined to offend in this way again.
It remains important however that Mr Hanson’s crime be soundly denounced by the terms of his punishment. I acknowledge the Crown’s entirely uncontroversial concession, in line with my opinion concerning objective seriousness, that the maximum penalty for murder is not called for in this case. Even so, the murder of Ms Annear was brutal and cruel and inexplicable and the sentence to be imposed upon Mr Hanson must reflect such matters.
The Crown submitted that given Mr Hanson’s history of offending, I could not be satisfied that he is unlikely to reoffend. The Crown accepted that it is difficult accurately to assess Mr Hanson’s prospects of rehabilitation given the likely length of the sentence to be imposed. The Crown submitted that his prospects of rehabilitation are poor given his history of offending, including repeated domestic violence offending against multiple partners, and previous unsuccessful attempts to cease domestic violence and drug use through courses.
Doing the best I can, I consider that Mr Hanson’s prospects of not reoffending remain guarded. His criminal history, including convictions for assault and contravening apprehended domestic violence orders and related offences, paints a somewhat pessimistic background from which to form any vaguely confident view about the future. The prospect of recurrent alcohol abuse in the context of Mr Hanson’s personality disorder provides little support for optimistic predictions.
This is a tragic case involving the brutal and unexplained killing of an innocent and defenceless woman by an intimate partner at the end of a long-troubled relationship characterised by violence and abuse. Even though the evidence against Mr Hanson was compelling and his actions undoubtedly led to Ms Annear’s death, the evidence at his trial remains eerily silent about the precise sequence of events at the logger’s hut or the true reasons why Mr Hanson so lost control that he embarked upon his unrestrained attack upon her. I have already observed that I am not prepared to accept and do not believe anything said by Mr Hanson that appears to explain why he did what he did. I have for that reason described the killing as unexplained.
Mr Hanson comes from a background itself marked out by violence, abuse and emotional deprivation. I have referred to these matters at some length. I accept that, in accordance with authority, Mr Hanson’s moral culpability for his crime is to some extent diminished by those matters, as well as his psychiatric diagnosis described in detail in the reports of Dr Chew and Mr Sheehan. The Crown has uncontroversially accepted that Mr Hanson’s disadvantaged upbringing and personality disorder appear to be linked and that it would be open to me to find upon the basis of principles outlined in cases like Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177] and Bugmy that his moral culpability is reduced. The Crown also submits, however, that any reduction would be modest given the prolonged nature of the offending, the severity of the injuries inflicted and Mr Hanson’s immediate post-offence conduct in attempting to conceal his actions.
I also note that a just and appropriate sentence must accord due recognition to the human dignity of Ms Annear as a victim of domestic violence as well as the legitimate interest of the general community in the denunciation and punishment of someone who kills his partner.
Rohen James Hanson, for the murder of Dee Annear on or about 18 September 2021 at Bulga Forest in the State of New South Wales, I sentence you to a non-parole term of imprisonment of 21 years commencing on 19 September 2021 and expiring on 18 September 2042 with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 18 September 2049. The first date upon which you will become entitled to release on parole is therefore 19 September 2042.
Pursuant to s 166(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, Mr Hanson has been charged with the following related offences:
Between 13 September 2021 and 19 September 2021 at Bulga Forest in the State of New South Wales he did knowingly contravene a restriction specified in an apprehended domestic violence order contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
Between 13 September 2021 and 19 September 2021 at Bulga Forest in the State of New South Wales he did drive a motor vehicle on a road during a period of disqualification contrary to s 54(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013.
I do not propose to deal with these related offences as I consider that, in accordance with s 167(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, to do so would not be in the interests of justice.
Finally, in compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to you. Your solicitor or barrister may be expected to provide you with further information about that.
**********
R
Hanson [2025] NSWSC 1147
(2013) 249 CLR 571
(2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Ms Annear also sustained a fracture to back of her skull, a fractured nose, a broken jaw, fractured ribs, a 70mm laceration to the outer surface of her left lung, bleeding in her pleural cavity, extensive facial and periorbital bruising, as well as extensive recent trauma bruising, abrasions, scratches and lacerations in 67 locations to Ms Annear's head, scalp, hands, limbs, torso and back. The cause of death was blunt force head trauma.
Ms Annear also suffered a distinctive patterned injury to her neck. Dr Cala, a forensic pathologist, said it was caused by a "rope-like object which can be placed around somebody's neck in an attempt to strangle them". It was his opinion that a chainsaw "pull cord" located on the lounge in the logger’s hut could have caused the injury.
The pull cord was forensically examined. A blood stain from a swab under the handle matched Ms Annear’s DNA profile. A trace DNA swab from the top surface of the handle had a mixed profile which could not exclude Mr Hanson or Ms Annear. A swab from the lower section of blood stained cord, in an area positive for human blood, had a DNA profile consistent with Ms Annear.
There is a dispute about whether Mr Hanson used a ligature, such as the pull-cord, in an attempt to strangle Ms Annear during the assault and whether he acted with the intention of killing her.
After he killed Ms Annear, Mr Hanson dragged a blood-stained mattress 70 metres to the south of the logger’s hut and disposed of it down an embankment and into the bush. He cleaned blood inside the hut, including the area around the hole in the wall. He took Ms Annear from the hut, lay her on the ground and covered her in a blanket.
Mr Hanson first attempted to contact triple 000 at 10.57am on Saturday 18 September 2021. He told the operator that there had been a car accident the night before, and that Ms Annear had “smacked” her head on the dashboard during the accident. He went to the vehicle to get help and returned to the hut and she was dead. The call ended at 11.07am.
Rural Fire Service workers were notified at 11:10am and were the first to arrive at the hut at about 12:00pm. The ambulance arrived at about 12:45pm and police thereafter. RFS workers saw Mr Hanson out the front of the hut. Ms Annear was outside on the ground covered by a blanket next to a lit campfire. She was wearing a black jumper and trackpants and had no shoes or socks on.
Mr Hanson was arrested at approximately 8.00pm. He was conveyed to Taree Police station. At 12:20am on Sunday 19 September 2021, he participated in an electronically recorded interview with police which lasted approximately four hours. He maintained that he and Ms Annear had a "loving relationship" and denied assaulting her during the camping trip.
Ms Hanson insisted throughout the interview that Ms Annear’s fatal injuries had been caused in the motor vehicle accident when he was driving. He said after the crash, Ms Annear said "I've had worse than this. If I can survive a car crash, I can fucking, I can survive another one. This ain't shit".
When challenged by the police about Ms Annear being in the vehicle at the time of the crash, and asked whether he killed her, Mr Hanson maintained the car crash version and said "it's all the truth. That's what happened".
Upon his release from police custody on the morning of 20 September 2021, Mr Hanson spoke with his mother, Janet Hanson. He told her there had been a fight in the hut, that "she tripped, she fell back and hit her head" and then they got in the vehicle and had the crash. He asked his mother to take photos of his injuries. These injuries were superficial.
Mr Hanson gave multiple inconsistent accounts as to how his injuries were occasioned, including being assaulted by Ms Annear, walking in the bush at night, stepping on glass, being injured during the car crash by hitting his head on the steering wheel, and from cutting wood. The cause of these minor injuries is unknown.
At approximately 4:30pm on 21 September 2021, Mr Hanson was re-arrested and charged with murder. On the journey to the police station Mr Hanson said "I didn't mean it. I tackled her and she hit her head… I didn't intend to hurt her".
When interviewed by police for a second time, Mr Hanson accepted the car crash version was a lie and that Ms Annear was not in the vehicle when it crashed.
He then gave different accounts of how the altercation inside the logger’s hut began, including that Ms Annear smashed a bottle into his head, that he tackled her into a wall as she was about to hit him with a bottle, that he tackled her into a wall as she charged at him and that he tackled her into a wall after she said, "come at me… come on you cunt".
Mr Hanson said they were "scrapping around on the ground" for between 5 and 20 seconds and that after Ms Annear’s head went into the wall, he kicked her but she was unconscious. He said he picked her up but tripped and she hit her head on the floor. Mr Hanson accepted that he had cleaned up blood in the hut as "there was just fuckin’ blood fuckin’ everywhere after this fuckin’ shit fight". When asked, "was there anything else you threw away", Mr Hanson told police he had disposed of the blood-stained mattress "’cause it looked like I fuckin’ murdered her".
Whatever suspicion one might have about Mr Hanson’s intention when he inflicted the injuries that caused Ms Annear’s death or the non-fatal injuries to her neck, it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill her when he did so. The uncontroversial fact that her death was the result of his actions is equally consistent, based upon the known or properly inferred facts, with a frenzied and brutal attack associated with no more than an intention to cause really serious injury. Mr Hanson’s post-offence conduct, such as disposing of the blood-stained mattress and cleaning up blood in the hut, as well as the several untruthful versions of what occurred given by him, are entirely neutral on this issue.
I am in the circumstances only able to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Annear died as the result of a sustained and brutal assault by Mr Hanson committed with the intention of inflicting really serious injury upon her.