R v Rankin - [2004] QCA 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rankin [2004] QCA 2

PARTIES:

R
v
RANKIN, Michael Anthony

(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2003
DC No 174 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

3 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and McPherson JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence and appeal allowed.

2.   Sentence varied by ordering that it be suspended for five years after the applicant has served two years of the sentence imposed by the District Court.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW –PARTICULAR OFFENCES- PROPERTY OFFENCES – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES – SENTENCING - applicant pleaded guilty to counts of burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, and attempted armed robbery with violence - whether parity of sentence between applicant and co-offenders – whether sentence manifestly excessive.

R v Couper [2003] QCA 429; CA No 213 of 2003, 25 September 2003, considered
R v Feher [2001] QCA 449; CA No 132 of 2001, 17 October 2001, distinguished.
R v Grogin CA No 198 of 1998, 27 August 1998, considered.
R v Sailor [2003] QCA 227; CA No 55 of 2002, 26 May 2003, distinguished.

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced on pleas of guilty in the District Court at Gladstone to two counts of (1) burglary by breaking and entering with violence while armed with accompanying property damage (2) attempted armed robbery with personal violence; and (3) assault occasioning bodily harm while armed.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each count to be served concurrently.

On 6th December 2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the complainant was at home at his flat in Gladstone where he lived with a young woman and her two-year-old child. There was a sound of banging on the door and she went to answer it, holding the child in her arms. After it happened again, she stepped back and the next thing was that the glass sliding door was smashed and the applicant forced his way in, knocking the adjacent television set over.

He was dressed in black clothing and wearing a beanie over his head. He was carrying a wooden axe handle about two feet in length. He demanded the complainant's wallet and drugs.

The complainant, who had been sitting on the couch, was struck in the face with the axe handle, which caused lacerations which later required stitching. He jumped up and tackled the applicant and dragged him into the kitchen. Being somewhat larger, he managed to subdue the applicant, who at some stage lapsed into unconsciousness. When the complainant relaxed his grip, 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 Rankin

Details

AGLC: R v Rankin [2004] QCA 2
Case: [2004] QCA 2
Decision Date: 3 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rankin, the applicant pleaded guilty to various offences including burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, and attempted armed robbery with violence. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment by the District Court. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that there was a lack of parity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offenders.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was a lack of parity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offenders. The court considered the principle that a sentence should reflect the culpability of the offender and be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was consistent with sentences handed down to co-offenders for similar crimes.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was a lack of parity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offenders. The court found that the District Court had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's early guilty plea and the fact that the applicant had been remorseful and cooperative throughout the proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant's co-offenders had received lesser sentences for similar offences. As a result, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal and varied the sentence by ordering that it be suspended for five years after the applicant has served two years of the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence and appeal allowed.

2. Sentence varied by ordering that it be suspended for five years after the applicant has served two years of the sentence imposed by the District Court.

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 Rankin [2004] QCA 2
PARTIES:	R v RANKIN, Michael Anthony (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2003 DC No 174 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	3 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and McPherson JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence and appeal allowed. 2. Sentence varied by ordering that it be suspended for five years after the applicant has served two years of the sentence imposed by the District Court.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW –PARTICULAR OFFENCES- PROPERTY OFFENCES – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES – SENTENCING - applicant pleaded guilty to counts of burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, and attempted armed robbery with violence - whether parity of sentence between applicant and co-offenders – whether sentence manifestly excessive. R v Couper [2003] QCA 429; CA No 213 of 2003, 25 September 2003, considered R v Feher [2001] QCA 449; CA No 132 of 2001, 17 October 2001, distinguished. R v Grogin CA No 198 of 1998, 27 August 1998, considered. R v Sailor [2003] QCA 227; CA No 55 of 2002, 26 May 2003, distinguished.
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant. The Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.