Legal Research
Cases
R v Rankin

R v Rankin

Case [2001] VSCA 158 5 September 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 350 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
KENNETH PAUL RANKIN

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., VINCENT, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 158

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Term of 7 years with non-parole period of 5 years not "manifestly excessive" - Judge's entitlement to take into account potential impact of crime upon immature victim, in the absence of expert evidence, discussed - Whether judge had erroneously punished applicant for "uncharged conduct" - Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.G. Hillman	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr W.E. Stuart	Michael P. Coghlan

WINNEKE, P.:

On 3 November last year the applicant, Kenneth Paul Rankin, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Geelong to one count of raping a 15-year-old girl. On 14 November the judge sentenced him to serve a term of seven years' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of five years. The applicant applies to this Court for leave to appeal against that sentence.

The circumstances in which the rape occurred are sordid. It took place on 21 March of last year in the bathroom of premises occupied by the applicant in a Geelong suburb. In the premises at the time were the applicant's two sons aged 16 and 14 years respectively and an 18-year-old boy who boarded at the premises. In the afternoon of that day the victim, who was a school friend of the applicant's younger son, arrived at the premises. It would seem that she was a somewhat aimless child who from time to time was accustomed to shun the society of her own family and seek refuge in the homes of others. That is what she was doing on this day. The applicant told her that she could stay the night in his premises. The applicant, who was 42 years of age at the time, appears to have been socially inept. He had no job nor qualifications for any. He had not worked for several years. His marriage had been dissolved for some time. His daughter lived with the mother and the younger boy, until this day, with the applicant. The elder boy was in the care of the Human Services Department, but it appears that from time to time he visited his father, as apparently he had on this day. The applicant's major pastime appeared to be the consumption of alcohol. He had for years been an alcoholic; for this, it seems, he was the recipient of a disability pension.

During the course of the evening of 21 March the applicant, the young victim and the young boys had embarked upon a drinking session. The girl became thoroughly intoxicated, to the point of becoming insensible. She was assisted to this condition by the applicant, who from time to time laced her less alcoholic beverages with neat whisky. She began…

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 [2001] VSCA 158
Case: [2001] VSCA 158
Decision Date: 5 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rankin involved a defendant appealing against the sentence imposed by the court. Rankin was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to seven years in prison, with a non-parole period of five years. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it was "manifestly excessive." Additionally, the applicant argued that the judge had mistakenly punished him for conduct that was not charged. The case was heard and determined by the relevant appellate court.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was "manifestly excessive." The court had to consider the nature and impact of the crime on the victim, as well as the principles governing sentencing. The applicant argued that the sentence was too harsh and did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the judge had mistakenly considered uncharged conduct when determining the sentence. This raised questions about the scope of the judge's discretion in sentencing and the need for expert evidence in assessing the impact of the crime on the victim.

The appellate court carefully reviewed the sentencing principles and the evidence presented in the case. The court determined that the sentence was not "manifestly excessive" and that the judge was entitled to consider the impact of the crime on the victim, even in the absence of expert evidence. The court found that the judge had not erroneously punished the applicant for uncharged conduct. Instead, the sentence was based on the gravity of the crime and the need to protect the community. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the appellate court beyond dismissing the applicant's appeal. The sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of five years remained in effect.

Orders