CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Serious offender – Rape (5 counts), indecent assault (2 counts), false imprisonment, and causing injury recklessly – Two episodes – Prior convictions for similar rapes – Sentenced as though all offences were “relevant offences” – Whether normal rule is total cumulation as between episodes – Offender Aboriginal who spent childhood in care and suffered abuse – Re-sentenced to 17 years 3 months term with 14 year minimum term – Sentencing Act 1991, ss.6B, 6D and 6E.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr. T. Gyorffy
K. Robertson,
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the applicant
Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C. and Mr. L.C. Carter
Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd.
BATT, J.A.:
On 27 March 2001, the day after his trial on a presentment containing 16 counts was listed to commence, the applicant, who was born on 11 May 1963, pleaded guilty on arraignment in the County Court at Ballarat to the nine counts on a substitute presentment, being five counts of rape, two counts of indecent assault, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of causing injury recklessly. There were two victims. The first, whom I shall call R, was the subject of the first three counts, being for penile oral rape, indecent assault and penile vaginal rape alleged to have occurred on 18 February 2000. The second victim, whom I shall call M, was the subject of the remaining counts, being for unlawful imprisonment, penile oral rape, causing injury recklessly, indecent assault, penile vaginal rape and object vaginal rape, all of which were alleged to have occurred between 21 and 22 April 2000. The maximum penalties for those offences are imprisonment for 25 years for rape; for 10 years for indecent assault; for 10 years for false imprisonment and for five years for recklessly causing injury. The applicant admitted 22 previous convictions from seven court appearances between 1980 and 1992. They included convictions in October 1980 for rape, indecent assault on a woman and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (two counts), for which the applicant was given by his Honour Judge Forrest a total effective sentence of imprisonment for five years and ordered to serve a minimum of two years and six months before being eligible for parole, and convictions in May 1992 for aggravated rape (two counts), rape, causing injury intentionally or recklessly, abduction for the purposes of sexual penetration, aggravated indecent assault (two counts) and theft, for which the applicant was given by Chief Judge Waldron a total effective sentence of imprisonment for seven years and six months and was ordered to serve a minimum of five years and six months before being eligible for parole.
His Honour then proceeded to hear a detailed…
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 Fuller-Cust
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Fuller-Cust [2002] VSCA 168
Case
[2002] VSCA 168
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Fuller-Cust, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment for a series of serious criminal offences. The appellant was found guilty of five counts of rape, two counts of indecent assault, false imprisonment, and recklessly causing injury. The crimes were committed in two separate episodes and the appellant had prior convictions for similar offences. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentencing process to determine if it was appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the appellant's background. The key legal issues before the court involved the principles of cumulative sentencing in cases where offences are committed in separate episodes and the consideration of an offender's background and personal circumstances.
The court examined whether the sentencing judge should have applied the normal rule of total cumulation between the two episodes or whether there were circumstances that justified a different approach. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's background, including his Aboriginal heritage, childhood in care, and history of abuse, to assess how these factors should influence the sentencing decision. The court determined that the original sentence did not adequately address the need to differentiate between the two episodes and that the appellant's background warranted significant consideration. Consequently, the court re-sentenced the appellant, imposing a total term of 17 years and 3 months with a minimum term of 14 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the appellant's personal circumstances.
The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of applying sentencing principles that take into account both the gravity of the crimes and the offender's background. The judges found that the original sentence did not appropriately balance these factors and that a re-sentencing was necessary to ensure a just outcome. The final orders of the court mandated a new sentence, reflecting the appropriate application of cumulative sentencing principles and consideration of the appellant's background. This decision underscores the need for courts to carefully weigh the nature of the offences and the personal history of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.