DPP v Riddle - [2002] VSCA 153

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 147 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
GARY JOHN RIDDLE

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CHERNOV and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 September 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 September 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 153

---

Criminal law – Crown appeal – Indecent act against child under the age of 16 years – Offending over protracted period - Serious breaches of trust and confidence by offender – Sentencing – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Whether overall sentence reflects criminality of offending conduct – Whether sufficient cumulation – Offender re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. (DPP) and Mr R.A. Elston	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Dr I.R.L. Freckelton and Mr N. Duhrow	McKean & Park

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

I ask Chernov, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 6 May 2002, the respondent, who is aged 50, pleaded guilty in the County Court to each of fourteen counts on a presentment. The first thirteen counts charged him with the commission of indecent assault upon several children under the age of 16. The offences carried maximum penalties of five years' imprisonment. The fourteenth count alleged that he indecently assaulted a girl aged 16. The crimes were committed over a period of 17 years between October 1971 and October 1988 and involved nine victims, all of whom were young girls; the age of eight of them varied between 10 and 15. At the time of the offending, the respondent stood in a position of moral superiority to his victims not only because he was considerably older than they were, but essentially because he held a position of trust in relation to them, variously as a teacher, sports coach, youth leader or as a family friend. At the hearing of the plea in mitigation the prosecutor informed the learned judge that, by agreement, counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 13 were representative counts in the sense that, in respect of each such count, the respondent committed multiple acts of indecency in relation to the relevant victim in the course of the conduct alleged in that count. More correctly these counts were rolled-up counts in the sense that each count was of one offence albeit constituted by a number of indecent acts committed at about the same time.

During the hearing of the plea in mitigation, the prosecutor tendered, inter alia, 16 victim impact statements relating to eight of the nine victims. It was common ground that the appropriate penalty was an immediate custodial sentence, although Dr Freckelton, for the respondent, urged his Honour to be lenient in imposing the custodial sentence having regard particularly to the respondent's previous good character, the age of the offences, his early plea of guilty and remorse and the unlikelihood of his re-offending. It was also accepted that, should the judge

impose sentences of imprisonment in respect of any of the two counts on the…

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 Riddle

Details

AGLC: DPP v Riddle [2002] VSCA 153
Case: [2002] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 11 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Riddle came before the High Court of Australia, where the Crown had appealed the sentence given to the offender, Riddle, who had been found guilty of multiple counts of committing indecent acts against a child under the age of sixteen years over a prolonged period. The court was tasked with examining the adequacy of the original sentence imposed and determining whether the punishment appropriately reflected the gravity of Riddle’s actions. The appeal focused on the serious breaches of trust and confidence that Riddle had committed, as well as the cumulative nature of the offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it adequately reflected the criminality of Riddle’s conduct. The court also considered whether the sentence sufficiently accounted for the cumulative impact of Riddle’s offending, given the extended duration and the significant breach of trust involved. The Crown argued that the original sentence did not appropriately capture the severity of the crimes and the offender’s culpability, prompting the need for a reassessment of the appropriate punishment.

The High Court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the nature and extent of Riddle’s offending. The court held that the sentence did not sufficiently take into account the protracted period over which the offences occurred and the serious breach of trust involved. The cumulative impact of Riddle’s actions warranted a harsher penalty that more accurately represented the gravity of his crimes. Consequently, the court re-sentenced Riddle, imposing a sentence that better reflected the criminality of his conduct and the serious breaches of trust and confidence involved.

In its judgment, the court ordered that Riddle be re-sentenced, providing specific details on the new sentence to ensure it appropriately addressed the seriousness of the offending. The court’s decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious offences adequately reflect the nature of the crimes and the offender’s culpability, particularly when the offending spans a considerable period and involves significant breaches of trust.

Orders