R v Cranfield - [2017] ACTSC 171

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cranfield
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 171
Hearing Date(s):	19 May 2017
DecisionDate:	26 May 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	Sentence of fifteen years, one month and twenty-five days with a non-parole period of nine years and six months: see [113]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – contravene protection order – sexual intercourse without consent – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse in the third degree) – making threat to kill – rolled-up counts– prior offences – late plea of guilty – offender intoxicated on methamphetamine at time of offence – effect of prospect of rehabilitation on nonparole period
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 30, 53(1), 54(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 169(1) Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT), s 90(2)
Cases Cited:	R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 Director of Public Prosecutions v Watson [2016] VSCA 73
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Adam Cranfield (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) A Doig (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 18 of 2016 SCC 19 of 2016 SCC 21 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

A week before his trial was due to commence the accused pleaded guilty to eight charges.

They are summarised in the following table.

Count
Offence Offence provision/ Maximum penalty Maximum penalty

1 Contravention of a protection order Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 s 90(2) 5 years and 500 penalty units

2 Sexual intercourse without consent Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1) 12 years

3 Sexual intercourse without consent Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1) 12 years

4 Sexual intercourse without consent Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1) 12 years

5 Sexual intercourse without consent Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1) 12 years

6 Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm Crimes Act 1900 s 20 13 years

7 Unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse in the third degree) Crimes Act 1900 s 53(1) 12 years

8 Making a threat to kill Crimes Act 1900 s 30 10 years

The offender has also pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine contrary to s 169(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) (CC2016/1916). The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment or both.

The circumstances of this case are quite confronting. They represent what, in layman’s terms could be described as a woman’s worst nightmare — a methylamphetamine-affected former partner attending her house in breach of a protection order, confining her and raping and assaulting her over a number of hours in circumstances where she justifiably feared for her life.

The charges are rolled up charges in that they incorporate, with the consent of the defendant, a number of offences under the umbrella of a…

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 Cranfield

Details

AGLC: R v Cranfield [2017] ACTSC 171
Case: [2017] ACTSC 171
Decision Date: 26 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cranfield involved the respondent, Cranfield, who was charged with multiple serious criminal offences including sexual intercourse without consent, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, and making threats to kill. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Cranfield was found guilty of these offences following a trial, however, he raised a late plea of guilty to certain counts during sentencing. The central legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Cranfield, taking into account the gravity of his offences, his intoxication at the time of committing the crimes, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider the principle of rolled-up counts and how this should affect the overall sentence and the non-parole period.

The court approached the sentencing process by first examining the nature and circumstances of the offences. It was clear that Cranfield's actions were violent and had a significant impact on the victims. The court acknowledged the aggravating factor of Cranfield's intoxication, which affected his judgment and control, but also emphasised the need to hold him accountable for his actions. The court considered the rolled-up counts, which involved multiple charges being consolidated into a single count for sentencing purposes, to ensure that the sentence reflected the totality of Cranfield's criminal conduct. Additionally, the court evaluated Cranfield's prospects for rehabilitation, which played a role in determining the non-parole period. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of fifteen years, one month, and twenty-five days, with a non-parole period of nine years and six months, was appropriate.

The Supreme Court of Victoria determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of Cranfield's offences while also considering the mitigating factors present in his case. The court found that the total sentence of fifteen years, one month, and twenty-five days, with a non-parole period of nine years and six months, was just and appropriate. This sentence took into account the need for deterrence, protection of the community, and the potential for Cranfield's rehabilitation. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of sentencing, ensuring that the punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed and that the non-parole period reflected Cranfield's prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of fifteen years, one month and twenty-five days with a non-parole period of nine years and six months: see [113]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Count	Offence	Offence provision/ Maximum penalty	Maximum penalty
1	Contravention of a protection order	Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 s 90(2)	5 years and 500 penalty units
2	Sexual intercourse without consent	Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1)	12 years
3	Sexual intercourse without consent	Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1)	12 years
4	Sexual intercourse without consent	Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1)	12 years
5	Sexual intercourse without consent	Crimes Act 1900 s 54(1)	12 years
6	Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm	Crimes Act 1900 s 20	13 years
7	Unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse in the third degree)	Crimes Act 1900 s 53(1)	12 years
8	Making a threat to kill	Crimes Act 1900 s 30	10 years