Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Daly

DPP v Daly

Case [2004] VSCA 63 28 April 2004

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 187 of 2003

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
MICHAEL BOYD DALY

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV and VINCENT, JJ.A. and BONGIORNO, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 April 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 63

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Director’s appeal – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Rape (3 counts) – Single occasion – Rape of a prostitute – Vulnerable victim – Appeal allowed – Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3½ years’ substituted for sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the D.P.P.	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C, D.P.P. with Mr. C.W. Beale	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C, with Mr. B.J. Bourke	Balmer and Associates Pty.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons for judgment of Bongiorno, A.J.A. and agree that the appeal should be disposed of as his Honour proposes. This Court has often said that the ground of manifest inadequacy does not admit of much elaboration. Once the relevant circumstances are ascertained, then the sentence upon its face appears manifestly inadequate or it does not. The applicable circumstances of this case are set out in his Honour’s reasons and need not be repeated. In particular, the victim here was a prostitute who worked her trade on the streets and, because she did not have premises to which she could take her customers, she used what she thought was a secluded area of the nearby beach to provide her services. It is plain that she was vulnerable to aggressive behaviour and, therefore, was a “soft target” for men who might wish to exert their physical superiority over her. And this is precisely what the applicant did in this case. Almost from the point when she mounted his motorcycle he took charge of the situation. He took the victim to a location other than one of her choosing, effectively led her to the area where he decided they should have sex and proceeded, over a considerable period of time, to impose on her his sexual frustrations as described by his Honour, with accompanying violence. Thereafter, he left her to fend for herself notwithstanding that he knew that she was apprehensive that another person was in the bushes who might well cause her physical harm, which in fact occurred. After he was apprehended, the applicant showed little remorse for his brutal conduct and fell to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 1991 in respect of one of the counts.

Mr. Tehan, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that the impugned sentence was within the range of sentences properly available to his Honour, and in support of that claim he referred to a number of cases where, he said, the sentences imposed for rape were low or moderate relative…

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 v Daly

Details

AGLC: DPP v Daly [2004] VSCA 63
Case: [2004] VSCA 63
Decision Date: 28 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge the sentence imposed on Daly for three counts of rape committed against a prostitute. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to consider whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was based on the severity of the crimes and the vulnerability of the victim. The key issue before the court was to determine if the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years was too lenient, given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the victim.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the crimes committed by Daly, which involved the rape of a vulnerable individual. The panel examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that the punishment reflects the seriousness of the offence and provides adequate deterrence and denunciation. The court considered the cumulative impact of the three counts of rape occurring on a single occasion and the impact on the victim, who was a prostitute. Given these factors, the court was tasked with assessing whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether a more stringent sentence was warranted.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The panel found that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the crimes or adequately address the need for deterrence and denunciation. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and a new sentence was imposed. The total effective sentence was set at 6 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3½ years. This new sentence was deemed more appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim.

Orders