R v GJ

The appellant, GJ, was convicted of raping a woman in Victoria. GJ appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds that the judge erred in the directions given to the jury regarding the elements of rape and by failing to give a direction in line with the decision in Zoneff v R. The appellant also challenged his sentence on the grounds that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the principles of concurrency and totality, the youth and prospects of rehabilitation of the appellant and that the judge erred in making a sex offender registration order. The court found that the judge did not err in the directions given to the jury but did find that the judge should have given a Zoneff direction. However, this did not affect the safety of the conviction. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the principles of concurrency and totality, the youth and prospects of rehabilitation of the appellant. The court also found that the judge erred in making a sex offender registration order. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was re-sentenced to a term of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.