R v Alexander; DPP v Alexander - [2008] VSCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 589 of 2008

THE QUEEN

HENRY ALEXANDER

No 138 of 2008

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (VIC)

HENRY ALEXANDER

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, NEAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 August 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 September 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 191

---

Criminal law – Conviction – Rape – Digital rape by personal care attendant of elderly patient suffering dementia – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 – Reliability and credibility of single witness to incident – Jury properly instructed – Application refused.

Criminal law – Sentence – Crown appeal – Manifest inadequacy – General deterrence – Flagrant disregard of victim’s humanity and dignity – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Double jeopardy – Appeal allowed – No increase of head sentence but new non-parole period imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C J Ryan SC	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant/Respondent	Mr P G Priest QC with Mr R I Gipp	Ryan Carlisle Thomas

VINCENT JA
NEAVE JA
WEINBERG JA:

The applicant was found guilty by the jury empanelled on his trial in the County Court at Melbourne, on 4 March 2008, on one count of rape.[1] He had no prior convictions.
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 38(1): This offence carries with it a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the judge, on 23 March 2008, imposed upon a term of imprisonment of three years, the service of two years and six months of which were suspended for an operational period of two years and six months.

He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction and the Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against the sentence handed down.

The application for leave to appeal against conviction

This application is based upon the single ground that:

1. In all the circumstances the jury’s verdict is –
(a)unsafe and unsatisfactory;
(b)unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence;

and in particular, a reasonable jury properly instructed ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

The appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against sentence

The Director has appealed against the sentence imposed on two grounds:

1.The sentence imposed in respect of count 1 was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances.

PARTICULARS
In fixing a term of 3 years imprisonment in respect of count 1, the sentencing judge –
(a)failed to sufficiently punish the offender to an extent which is just in all of the circumstances;
(b)failed to sufficiently deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character;
(c)failed to sufficiently manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged;
(d)failed to sufficiently protect the community from the offender;
(e)failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence;
(f)failed…

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 R v Alexander; DPP v Alexander

Details

AGLC: R v Alexander; Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander [2008] VSCA 191
Case: [2008] VSCA 191
Decision Date: 25 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alexander; DPP v Alexander, the appellant, Alexander, was convicted of raping an elderly patient suffering from dementia. The dispute arose over the safety and adequacy of the conviction and the severity of the sentence imposed. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the conviction and sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, considering the reliability and credibility of the sole witness to the incident, and whether the jury was properly instructed. The court also needed to determine if the sentence was manifestly inadequate in terms of general deterrence, given the gravity of the crime and the appellant's flagrant disregard for the victim's humanity and dignity. Additionally, the court had to consider the principle of double jeopardy in relation to the appeal.

The court found that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, as the jury had been properly instructed and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction. The court rejected the argument that the reliability and credibility of the sole witness were in question. Regarding the sentence, the court held that it was manifestly inadequate and did not adequately serve the purpose of general deterrence. The appellant's actions demonstrated a significant disregard for the victim's dignity and humanity, warranting a more severe sentence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and a new non-parole period was imposed without increasing the head sentence. This decision aimed to balance the principles of general deterrence and double jeopardy.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal on the grounds of the manifestly inadequate sentence, to impose a new non-parole period, and to uphold the conviction. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences appropriately reflect the gravity of crimes involving vulnerable victims and the need for general deterrence.

Orders