Legal Research
Cases
DPP (Cth) v Ramos

DPP (Cth) v Ramos

Case [2018] VSCA 290 12 November 2018

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0071

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)	Appellant
v
KENNETH WILLIAM RAMOS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, BEACH AND NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 290
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Ramos (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Quinn, 9 March 2018).

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Crown appeal – Ground of manifest inadequacy – Respondent convicted of sexual offences by use of carriage service – 20 female victims under 16 years of age – Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3 years 6 months – No error of principle – Sentence not manifestly inadequate – Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Karazisis (2010) 31 VR 634 applied – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms S M McNaughton SC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosections, with Ms K Breckweg	Ms A Pavleka, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For the Respondent	Ms S Flynn QC with	Victoria Legal Aid
Ms A Renieris

WHELAN JA
BEACH JA
NIALL JA:

On 31 January 2018 the respondent, Kenneth Ramos, was arraigned and pleaded guilty to a total of 28 charges concerning sex offences committed through the use of the internet. Following a plea hearing on that date he was sentenced by a judge in the County Court on 9 March 2018 to a total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 3 years 6 months was fixed. Twenty-six of the 28 charges were Commonwealth offences. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions now appeals from the sentences imposed on those 26 Commonwealth charges contending that each of the individual sentences, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period are manifestly inadequate.

Background

The respondent was born in the Philippines and came to Australia when he was a young child. He is an Australian citizen. He does not know his biological father. He considers his stepfather to be his father. He has one younger sister. When he was a baby he contracted an infection which resulted in him suffering a significant hearing impediment. He had learning difficulties at school and psychological testing reveals that he has a low IQ. He is a talented basketball player. He represented Australia in the 2012 Asia Pacific Deaf Games in Seoul, South Korea and he participated in the 2013 Olympic Deaf Games in Sofia, Bulgaria.

The respondent is now aged 27. The first 24 offences were committed between 1 October 2013 and 27 January 2016 when he was aged between 22 and 24. On 28 January 2016 police executed a search warrant at his residential address. He was charged and released on bail on that day. Later that year and early the following year, when aged 25 and whilst still on bail, he committed two further relevantly similar offences. These further two offences also constitute the commission of two State…

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 DPP (Cth) v Ramos

Details

AGLC: DPP (Cth) v Ramos [2018] VSCA 290
Case: [2018] VSCA 290
Decision Date: 12 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) versus Ramos, the High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the respondent, who was convicted of multiple sexual offences involving the use of a carriage service to engage in sexual activities with 20 female victims under the age of 16. The respondent was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The Commonwealth, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate, warranting a review by the High Court. The court was required to determine whether the sentence appropriately reflected the gravity of the crimes committed and whether it was sufficiently severe to serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court needed to consider the principles established in previous cases, such as Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Karazisis, to assess the adequacy of the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the respondent was not manifestly inadequate. It acknowledged the severity of the crimes committed, which involved the exploitation of vulnerable victims and the use of a carriage service to facilitate the offences. However, the court concluded that the sentence did not suffer from any error of principle and appropriately balanced the competing objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court applied the principles set out in Karazisis and determined that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for such offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in this matter. The sentence imposed on the respondent by the lower court was upheld, and the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) was unsuccessful.

Orders