R v Rankine - [2000] QCA 238

[2000] QCA 238

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
WHITE J

CA No 93 of 2000

THE QUEEN

DANIEL RICHARD RANKINE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/06/2000

JUDGMENT

WHITE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him in the District Court at Mount Isa on 16 March 2000. He pleaded guilty to two counts on each of two indictments before the Court and three counts on
ex officio indictment. It is convenient to mention the offences chronologically although the order of the indictments and the charges on them are not so arranged.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of entering two dwellings and stealing on 1 November 1998 at Mount Isa on one indictment. On each count he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to one count of entering a dwelling and stealing and one count of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation on 28 November 1998 at Mount Isa on another indictment. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 12 and 18 months respectively in respect of those two counts.

He pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment to one count of entering a dwelling with intent, one count of stealing and one count of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation on 8 January 2000 at Mount Isa. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment for the stealing offence and three years imprisonment for the indecent assault. All terms of imprisonment were to be served concurrently.

The learned sentencing Judge did not make any recommendation for early eligibility for parole. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing Judge erred in not suspending all or part of the sentences. In his written submissions, Mr East for the applicant abandoned the complaint that the learned sentencing Judge ought to have wholly suspended the sentences which he imposed but that he ought to have suspended part of the sentence.

The complaint that the sentences were manifestly excessive is confined to the three year term of imprisonment imposed for the indecent assault on 8 January 2000. In his oral submissions, Mr Byrne QC for the Crown, concedes that it is on the high side.

The applicant was a 20-year-old young man at the time of the offences with two apparently minor disorderly behaviour previous convictions in 1996 and 1997, one breach of bail in 1998 and one minor drug possession conviction in 1999.

On 1 November 1998 the complainant, David Smith, awoke about 5.30 a.m. in his motel room in Mount Isa and saw the applicant rifling through some items spread out on a bench. When challenged the applicant grabbed some cash and ran off. About half an hour later the complainant Graham Taylor was awoken in his bedroom in his house and noticed the applicant leaving his room. The applicant was eventually detained by police. The property taken was cigarettes. The applicant was charged and granted bail.
On 28 November 1998 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 Rankine

Details

AGLC: R v Rankine [2000] QCA 238
Case: [2000] QCA 238
Decision Date: 16/06/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rankine involved the applicant, Daniel Richard Rankine, who sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the District Court at Mount Isa on 16 March 2000. Rankine had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of entering dwellings and stealing, as well as indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with the longest being three years for the second indecent assault. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge erred in not suspending all or part of the sentences.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the three-year sentence for the second indecent assault was excessive and whether the learned sentencing judge erred in not making a recommendation for early parole eligibility. The applicant's counsel argued that the sentence was at the higher end of the range and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's timely pleas of guilty and his minor previous criminal history. The Crown, while conceding that the sentence was on the high side, argued that the applicant's inability to control his impulses warranted a significant sentence.

The court found that the sentence for the second indecent assault was indeed excessive. The court noted that the applicant's prior criminal history and the level of violence used in the commission of the assaults were absent, distinguishing this case from others cited by the Crown. The court concluded that due recognition had not been given to the applicant's timely pleas of guilty, as required by the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The court substituted a term of imprisonment of two years for the second indecent assault, taking into account the plea of guilty and other mitigating factors.

The court granted the application and allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a term of imprisonment of two years for count 3 on the ex officio indictment. The orders were as indicated by Justice White, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Orders