R v Ramm - [2008] QCA 13

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ramm [2008] QCA 13

PARTIES:

R
v
RAMM, Luke Kade
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 285 of 2007
DC No 6249 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON

11 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Atkinson, J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application granted.
Appeal allowed only to the extent of ordering that the applicant be considered eligible for release on parole after serving 16 months imprisonment

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE- APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE-PARTICULAR OFFENCES-OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON-SEXUAL OFFENCES-ATTEMPT AND ASSAULT WITH INTENT-FACTORS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT- where the applicant pleaded guilty to break and enter dwelling with intent at night with actual violence used-where applicant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rape-where applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with no recommendation as to parole-where remorse was expressed by applicant-where there was an early plea of guilty-whether recommendation should be made for release on parole

R v Armstrong [2006] QCA 158,cited
R v Billy, CA No 208 of 1997,cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan SC with J P Benjamin for the appellant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Department of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Atkinson will give her reasons first.

ATKINSON J: The applicant, Luke Kade Ramm, has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 3 October 2007. On that day he pleaded guilty to four counts. On each of count 1, break and enter dwelling with intent at night with actual violence used, and count 2, assault with intent to rape, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. On each of two counts of stealing, counts 3 and 4, he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. All the sentences were to be served concurrently and a declaration was made with regard to 149 days in pre-sentence custody. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The events, the subject of counts 1 and 2, occurred in the early hours of 5 August 2006. At about 4.30 a.m. the complainant was woken by someone trying to open the front door of the unit in which she lived. He was fully clothed and asked her in rather vulgar terms to have sexual intercourse with him. Although they lived in the same block of units they had no previous acquaintance and she rejected his request. She was concerned for her safety and ensured that the front and back doors were securely locked.

About half an hour later the applicant smashed in one of the French doors to her living room. By this time he had undressed and was wearing only his underpants and work boots. He physically attacked the…

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 Ramm

Details

AGLC: R v Ramm [2008] QCA 13
Case: [2008] QCA 13
Decision Date: 11 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of R v Ramm before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the applicant who had been sentenced to four years imprisonment for two offences. The applicant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a crime at night and using actual violence, as well as assault with intent to rape. The applicant expressed remorse and entered an early plea of guilty. The court was tasked with determining whether a recommendation should be made for the applicant's release on parole. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be considered eligible for parole after serving a specified period of the sentence.

The court considered the nature of the offences and the applicant's conduct, including the expression of remorse and the early plea of guilty. The court referenced previous cases such as R v Armstrong and R v Billy to guide its decision on parole eligibility. The court found that, given the mitigating factors present in this case, a recommendation for parole eligibility was appropriate. The court determined that the applicant should be considered eligible for release on parole after serving 16 months of the four-year sentence.

The Queensland Court of Appeal granted the application to the extent of ordering that the applicant be considered eligible for parole after serving 16 months imprisonment. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of modifying the original sentence to include this parole eligibility recommendation. This decision ensures that the sentencing reflects the mitigating factors presented, including the early guilty plea and the applicant's remorse, while maintaining appropriate considerations for public safety and justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted.

Appeal allowed only to the extent of ordering that the applicant be considered eligible for release on parole after serving 16 months imprisonment

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.

CITATION:	R v Ramm [2008] QCA 13
PARTIES:	R v RAMM, Luke Kade (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 285 of 2007 DC No 6249 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON	11 February 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Atkinson, J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application granted. Appeal allowed only to the extent of ordering that the applicant be considered eligible for release on parole after serving 16 months imprisonment
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE- APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE-PARTICULAR OFFENCES-OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON-SEXUAL OFFENCES-ATTEMPT AND ASSAULT WITH INTENT-FACTORS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT- where the applicant pleaded guilty to break and enter dwelling with intent at night with actual violence used-where applicant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rape-where applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with no recommendation as to parole-where remorse was expressed by applicant-where there was an early plea of guilty-whether recommendation should be made for release on parole R v Armstrong [2006] QCA 158,cited R v Billy, CA No 208 of 1997,cited
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan SC with J P Benjamin for the appellant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Department of Public Prosecutions (Qld)