R v Ragg

Case [2020] NSWDC 210 18 May 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates: 24 October 2019; 9 December 2019; 14 April 2020; 1 May 2020
Decision date: 18 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
The offender is convicted and sentenced to:
Indicative sentences of imprisonment:
SEQ 4: 6 months
SEQ 8: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months
SEQ 9: 2 years
SEQ 10: 4 years
SEQ 12: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months
SEQ 15: 3 years - NPP – 2 years, 3 months
SEQ 2: 9 years – NPP 6 years, 9 months
SEQ 17 – 10 years – NPP 7 years, 6 months
SEQ 18 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months
SEQ 19 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months
s166 Matters – indicative terms of imprisonment:
SEQ 3 – 9 months
SEQ 20 – 4 years
SEQ 7 – 8 years
Aggregate sentence:
Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 24 years comprising a NPP of 18 years commencing 1 December 2018 and expiring on 30 November 2036 and a balance of term of 6 years expiring on 30 November 2042.
Eligible for parole on 30 November 2036.
I note that s25C Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 applies in re SEQ 2, 17, 18 & 19.
Pursuant to s12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2007, I direct that each of the offences above be recorded on offender’s criminal history as a “domestic violence offence.”
SEQ 5 & 6 withdrawn and dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Sentence –common assault – reckless wounding – intimidation - using explosive fluid - attempted cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent - aggravated sexual assault x 4 – contravene AVO - threaten witness to withhold true evidence - aggravated detention with the intention of assaulting and intimidating the victim (at the time of the detention actual bodily harm was occasioned to the victim) –history of domestic violence – severe physical injuries to victim and sequelae – objective seriousness of offences – continuing sequence of offending – Victim Impact Statement – high prospect of reoffending – dangerousness – aggregate sentence – subjective matters
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
Dunn (2007) NSWCCA 312
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Ibraham (2005) NSWCCA 43
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Lyndon (2003) NSWCCA 152
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
R v Betts [2015] NSWCCA 39
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Richards

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 Ragg

Details

AGLC: R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210
Case: [2020] NSWDC 210
Decision Date: 18 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ragg, was convicted and sentenced for a series of serious criminal offences including common assault, reckless wounding, intimidation using explosive fluid, attempted grievous bodily harm with intent, and multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of [State]. The central dispute revolves around the severity and nature of Ragg's crimes, particularly given his history of domestic violence, and the appropriate aggregate sentence that should be imposed considering the objective seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and the impact on the victim.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the objective seriousness of the offences, the cumulative effect of the continuing sequence of offending, and the assessment of the risk of reoffending and dangerousness. The court also needed to consider the impact on the victim, as evidenced by a Victim Impact Statement, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Additionally, the court had to weigh the subjective matters pertaining to the appellant, including his history and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The court found the offences to be exceptionally serious, marked by a pattern of escalating violence and intimidation. The court noted the severe physical injuries and psychological impact on the victim, as well as the high risk of reoffending due to Ragg's history of domestic violence. The court determined that an aggregate sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the cumulative harm caused and to protect the community. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Ragg to a total term of imprisonment of 24 years, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court also directed that certain offences be recorded as domestic violence offences and noted the applicability of the High Risk Offender provisions.

In conclusion, the court ordered the aggregate sentence of 24 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, starting from 1 December 2018, with parole eligibility on 30 November 2036. The court also made specific findings under the relevant legislative provisions concerning domestic violence and high-risk offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted and sentenced to:

Indicative sentences of imprisonment:

SEQ 4: 6 months

SEQ 8: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months

SEQ 9: 2 years

SEQ 10: 4 years

SEQ 12: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months

SEQ 15: 3 years - NPP – 2 years, 3 months

SEQ 2: 9 years – NPP 6 years, 9 months

SEQ 17 – 10 years – NPP 7 years, 6 months

SEQ 18 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months

SEQ 19 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months

s166 Matters – indicative terms of imprisonment:

SEQ 3 – 9 months

SEQ 20 – 4 years

SEQ 7 – 8 years

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 24 years comprising a NPP of 18 years commencing 1 December 2018 and expiring on 30 November 2036 and a balance of term of 6 years expiring on 30 November 2042.

Eligible for parole on 30 November 2036.

I note that s25C Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 applies in re SEQ 2, 17, 18 & 19.

Pursuant to s12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2007, I direct that each of the offences above be recorded on offender’s criminal history as a “domestic violence offence.”

SEQ 5 & 6 withdrawn and dismissed.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210

Most Recent Citation

Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150

Cases Citing This Decision

Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
Citation 1 (Para 3)

…Court. On 18 May 2020, his Honour Judge King imposed the aggregate sentence noted above and published a comprehensive sentencing judgment ( R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210; the “sentencing judgment”). In doing so, his Honour specified the indicative sentences for each offence in accordance with s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Citation 1 (Para 89)

…if any would ordinarily be given to them for that reason ( R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 at [58] – [59] as referred to by Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144, at [57])…
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
Citation 2 (Para 55)

…As observed by Wilson J in R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487 at [174] - [176];…
Betts v R [2015] NSWCCA 39
Citation 3 (Para 39)

…under the headings of “Vaginal injury” and “Anorectal Injury” and as referred to above substantially exceed actual bodily harm. ( R v Betts [2015] NSWCCA 39)…
Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
Citation 4 (Para 29)

…In Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248, when considering an argument that two of the counts involved less serious conduct because the form of sexual intercourse was digital penetration (more than one finger/vaginal and hand/vaginal), Bellew J (Hoeben CJ at CL and Johnson J agreeing) stated at [54] – [56]:…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 5

…CCA 43 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Lyndon (2003) NSWCCA 152 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561 R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487 R v Betts [2015] NSWCCA 39 R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 6 (Para 78)

…I accept that the principle referred to in Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 is enlivened in this matter and that the offender’s moral culpability is accordingly reduced.…
Muhammad Jehangir Khan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 132
Citation 7

…04] NSWCCA 183 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 132 Veen (No 2) v The Queen [1998] 164 CLR 465 Wakefield (2010) NSWCCA Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Brett James Ragg Representation: Counsel: Crown: Ms K Ratcliffe Offender: Mr R Hussey Solicitors: Crown: Ms…
R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20
Citation 8 (Para 25)

…be no prima facie assumption or general proposition that any one form of sexual intercourse is less or more serious than any other form. R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20 Tobias JA at [20 - 21]…
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
Citation 9 (Para 54)

…on of the community. Recognition of the harm done to the victim and the community as a result of crimes of domestic violence is important ( R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302, per Johnson J (with whom Hunt AJA and Latham J agreed).…
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
Citation 10 (Para 62)

…to be given to retribution, personal/specific deterrence and the protection of society, ( Veen (No 2) v The Queen [1998] 164 CLR 465; R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242).…
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Citation 11 (Para 114)

…of this offending, and subsequently sentenced in respect of on 12 December 2018, although I am fully aware of the discretion to do so, Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58. That I have not done so is not the result of “error or oversight” Dunn (2007) NSWCCA 312; Lyndon (2003) NSWCCA 152; Ibraham (2005) NSWCCA 43; Wakefi…
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
Citation 12

…2006] NSWCCA 302 R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 132 Veen (No 2) v The Queen [1998] 164 CLR 465 Wakefield (2010) NSWCCA Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Brett James Ra…
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Citation 13 (Para 89)

…entence to allow the Court to make an independent assessment, and little weight if any would ordinarily be given to them for that reason ( R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 at [58] – [59] as referred to by Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144, at [57])…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 383
Citation 14 (Para 3)

…allowing for some amendments. He is entitled to a discount of 25% in respect of each offence and such a discount has been applied. Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 15 (Para 62)

…nt case for increased weight to be given to retribution, personal/specific deterrence and the protection of society, ( Veen (No 2) v The Queen [1998] 164 CLR 465; R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242).…
Ibbs v the Queen [1987] HCA 46
Citation 16 (Para 26)

…duct depends on the facts of the case and not on the statute defining the offence.” R v Hibberd Price J at [55] referring to Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell (1970) AC 642
Citation 17

…enalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences: DPP v Ottewell (1970) AC 642, at p 650.…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
2 mentions (from Para 118)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 115)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 11)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 23)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates:	24 October 2019; 9 December 2019; 14 April 2020; 1 May 2020
Decision date:	18 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is convicted and sentenced to: Indicative sentences of imprisonment: SEQ 4: 6 months SEQ 8: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months SEQ 9: 2 years SEQ 10: 4 years SEQ 12: 3 years – NPP 2 years, 3 months SEQ 15: 3 years - NPP – 2 years, 3 months SEQ 2: 9 years – NPP 6 years, 9 months SEQ 17 – 10 years – NPP 7 years, 6 months SEQ 18 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months SEQ 19 – 14 years – NPP 10 years, 6 months s166 Matters – indicative terms of imprisonment: SEQ 3 – 9 months SEQ 20 – 4 years SEQ 7 – 8 years Aggregate sentence: Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 24 years comprising a NPP of 18 years commencing 1 December 2018 and expiring on 30 November 2036 and a balance of term of 6 years expiring on 30 November 2042. Eligible for parole on 30 November 2036. I note that s25C Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 applies in re SEQ 2, 17, 18 & 19. Pursuant to s12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2007, I direct that each of the offences above be recorded on offender’s criminal history as a “domestic violence offence.” SEQ 5 & 6 withdrawn and dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL - Sentence –common assault – reckless wounding – intimidation - using explosive fluid - attempted cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent - aggravated sexual assault x 4 – contravene AVO - threaten witness to withhold true evidence - aggravated detention with the intention of assaulting and intimidating the victim (at the time of the detention actual bodily harm was occasioned to the victim) –history of domestic violence – severe physical injuries to victim and sequelae – objective seriousness of offences – continuing sequence of offending – Victim Impact Statement – high prospect of reoffending – dangerousness – aggregate sentence – subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 Dunn (2007) NSWCCA 312 Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 Ibraham (2005) NSWCCA 43 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Lyndon (2003) NSWCCA 152 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561 R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487 R v Betts [2015] NSWCCA 39 R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Richards