This is an appeal by the Crown against sentences imposed on the respondent, Mr Marcus Rappel, by a judge of this Court on 27 September 2018, in respect of two counts of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on 7 August 2017 upon two fellow inmates of a prison at which he was serving a lengthy term of imprisonment. At the time of that offending, Mr Rappel was serving aggregate sentences of 32 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for:
(a)Murder: 30 years imprisonment;
(b)recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm: two years and 11 months imprisonment;
(c)assault occasioning actual bodily harm: 10 months imprisonment; and
(d)contravening a protection order: two years and six months imprisonment.
The prior murder sentence commenced on the date upon which it was committed, being 28 February 2015, and ending on 27 February 2045. The remaining prior three sentences were imposed so as to be partly concurrent and partly consecutive with each preceding sentence, producing an end date to the aggregate head sentence of 27 April 2047. The single non-parole period for those four sentences was 26 years, to expire on 27 February 2041.
The net effect of the sentences imposed for the additional assaults committed in prison on 7 August 2017 was to extend the existing head sentence by just under six months, to 24 October 2047, and to extend the existing…
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 Rappel
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11
Case
[2019] ACTCA 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr Rappel, who had been convicted of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the primary judge erred by not providing reasons for imposing the sentences concurrently with existing sentences. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Mossop and Bromwich JJ.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed was so lenient as to be demonstrably unjust, and whether the failure of the sentencing judge to articulate the reasons for ordering the sentences to be served concurrently with the respondent's existing sentences constituted an error of law.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in failing to provide reasons for the concurrent sentencing, which prevented the Court from assessing whether the sentencing discretion had been properly exercised. The Court determined that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the respondent's criminal history. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced.