R v Jones - [1999] TASSC 30

[1999] TASSC 30

PARTIES:  R
  v
  JONES, Mark Rodney

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 71/1998
DELIVERED:  23 March 1999
HEARING DATE/S:  3 March 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Wright, Crawford and Slicer JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - General principles - Rape and aggravated assault - Sentence manifestly inadequate - Brutal and depraved attack upon young woman - Aggravating circumstances - Double jeopardy.

R v Brown 69/1987; R v Harland-White 23/1997, followed
R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520; Griffiths v R (1997) 137 CLR 293; Malvaso v R (1989) 168 CLR 227; Everett v R (1994) 181 CLR 295, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1003]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  C J Geason
             Respondent:  T J Ellis
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Clarke & Gee

Judgment category classification:
Judgment ID Number: [1999] TASSC 30
Number of pages: 8

Serial No 30/1999
File No CCA 71/1998

THE QUEEN v MARK RODNEY JONES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WRIGHT J
CRAWFORD J (Dissenting)
SLICER J
23 March 1999

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.
Sentence quashed.
Substitute a sentence of imprisonment of five years as from 8 July 1998.

Serial No 30/1999
File No CCA 71/1998

THE QUEEN v MARK RODNEY JONES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WRIGHT J
23 March 1999

This is a Crown appeal against sentence imposed by Evans J in the Criminal Court at Launceston on 31 July 1998, whereby he sentenced the respondent to four years' imprisonment upon the respondent's plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code, s183 and two counts of vaginal rape and two counts of anal rape contrary to the Criminal Code, s185. The ground of the appeal is that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The complainant was a 17 year old school leaver. She met the respondent, then aged 22 years, on the evening that the crimes were committed at a school leavers' party. Prior to the incidents complained of, the complainant and the respondent had danced, kissed and the respondent had rubbed the complainant's breasts. They moved away from the party into a paddock where more kissing and rubbing of the complainant's breasts occurred. The complainant then heard the respondent's zipper being undone and she indicated to him she did not want to do anything further. The respondent then perpetrated a sustained, depraved, violent and disturbing attack upon the complainant. He removed his belt and pulled his trousers down, lent his body against hers and pushed her to the ground. He then pulled up her skirt, pulled her pants down and lay on top of her between her legs. The complainant protested and kept saying "no" but he put both his hands around her throat and thereby prevented her from breathing or…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [1999] TASSC 30
Case: [1999] TASSC 30
Decision Date: 23 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania heard an appeal against the sentence imposed on Mark Rodney Jones, who had been convicted of multiple counts of aggravated assault and rape. The appeal was brought by the Crown, arguing that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was manifestly inadequate given the severity of the crimes. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was so inadequate as to warrant an increase, and whether the principles of double jeopardy should prevent such an increase.

Wright J, who authored the majority judgment, concluded that the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The crimes involved a brutal and depraved attack on a young woman, causing her significant physical and psychological harm. The court considered the nature of the attack, the complainant's injuries, and the respondent's lack of remorse. Wright J noted that while the respondent had previously been charged with rape, the circumstances did not warrant any credit towards his current sentence. Despite the principle of double jeopardy, Wright J believed that the appropriate sentence should be five years' imprisonment, to be backdated to the date of the respondent's initial custody.

Crawford J dissented, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed. While acknowledging the severity of the crimes, Crawford J emphasised the wide discretion afforded to sentencing judges and the principle that appellate courts should not overturn sentences merely because they are perceived as being light. Crawford J considered that the respondent's guilty plea, his remorse, and the previous period of imprisonment for an unproved offence should be taken into account. Consequently, Crawford J was not convinced that the sentence was so inadequate as to warrant intervention by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Slicer J concurred with Wright J's judgment, agreeing that the sentence should be increased to five years' imprisonment. Slicer J highlighted the excessive violence and degradation exhibited by the respondent, which warranted a sentence towards the upper end of the range for such crimes. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of five years' imprisonment.

Orders