Arthur Patrick Rule v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 162

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0191

ARTHUR PATRICK RULE	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 August 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 162
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1911 (Judge Smallwood)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Charges of home invasion, recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally damaging property – Total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period 6 years – Whether judge erred in giving insufficient weight to applicant’s intellectual disability – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused – Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr MD Stanton with Mr T McCulloch
Respondent:		Ms K Hamill
Solicitors
Applicant:	Balmer & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
NIALL JA:

On 28 June 2021, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of home invasion, one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, one charge of intentionally damaging property and one related summary offence of contravening a personal safety intervention order.
The victim was the applicant’s neighbour, Ms Christina Weller. She had moved to the country in about 2016 to set herself up for retirement. Initially, both Ms Weller and the applicant’s family were on good terms, but this deteriorated. Ms Weller lived alone with the companionship of her dogs.
On 20 July 2019, at approximately 11.00 pm, the applicant and his co-offender, Quinton Rule (‘Quinton’), the applicant’s son, broke a glass door of Ms Weller’s home. The applicant and his son stepped through the door and entered the home. The applicant carried a baseball bat and Quinton carried a straight piece of pipe, approximately one metre long. Quinton hit Ms Weller to the back and she fell to the ground. Both the applicant and Quinton then kicked and hit Ms Weller whilst she was on the ground, mainly to her back, legs and ankles.
The applicant screamed at Ms Weller to ‘Get out, get out of town and don’t go to the cops.’ Ms Weller told the applicant that she did not think she could get up and the applicant kicked her again.
Ms Weller managed to crawl through the family room, over broken glass from the broken door, and through the garden bed outside to make it to her car parked in the carport. As she was crawling, the applicant handed Ms Weller her car keys. Ms Weller asked if she could take her dogs with her and the applicant replied ‘no’. Ms Weller dragged herself into the driver’s seat. She put her car into reverse to drive away. The applicant hit her car windscreen with the baseball bat and screamed at her to get out and leave town. Quinton also hit the bonnet of the car.
Ms Weller drove to a friend’s house, sounded the horn, got out of the car and yelled for…

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 Arthur Patrick Rule v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Arthur Patrick Rule v The Queen [2022] VSCA 162
Case: [2022] VSCA 162
Decision Date: 16 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur Patrick Rule sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Australia. Rule was convicted of home invasion, recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally damaging property. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria had affirmed the sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge erred in not adequately considering Rule’s intellectual disability and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles established in Muldrock v The Queen. It found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factor of Rule’s intellectual disability, albeit not in extensive detail. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the severity of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court also emphasised the importance of the totality principle in sentencing, which requires the court to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences rather than each individual sentence in isolation.

The court ultimately refused leave to appeal, concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not erred in the way he had considered Rule’s intellectual disability. The Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed.

Orders