R v Rappel

Case [2017] ACTSC 38


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Rappel

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 38

Hearing Dates:

18, 19 July and 5, 6, 7, 8 September 2016

DecisionDate:

24 February 2017

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [152]-[156]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offences against the person – murder – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – contravening a protection order – plea of guilty – disputed facts – intention – worst case – sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 24

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35(4)
Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT)

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 65

Cases Cited:

Arthars v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258; 39 VR 613

Burrell v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 163; 196 A Crim R 199
Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49
R v Droudis (No 16) [2017] NSWSC 20
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; 50 NSWLR 409
R v Hayes [2010] QCA 96
R v Perry [2006] NSWCCA 351; 166 A Crim R 383
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48
R v Rappel [2016] ACTSC 295
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 380
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

R v Twala (NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 4 November 1994, unreported)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Marcus Rappel (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr S Drumgold with Ms Christensen (Crown)

Mr S Whybrow (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Ben Aulich and Associates (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 204 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. Marcus Rappel, on 3 March 2016 you were arraigned on an indictment dated 21 September 2015 and entered pleas of guilty to the following charges:

(a)Count 1 – alleging that on 28 February 2015 you murdered Tara Costigan;

(b)Count 2 – alleging that on the same date, being a person who had been personally served with a copy of a protection order, you did contravene a condition of that protection order; and

(c)Count 4 – alleging that on the same date you assaulted Bryce Bullman, thereby occasioning to him actual bodily harm.

  1. On 18 July 2016, you were arraigned on and plead guilty to Count 3 on the same indictment, alleging that on 28 February 2015 you recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Rikki Schmidt.

  1. The offence of murder, contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act), carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The offence of contravening a protection order carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both. The offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of 13 years imprisonment.

  1. For the purposes of sentencing you it will be necessary to make findings of fact,…

Continue reading R v Rappel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rappel [2017] ACTSC 38
Case
[2017] ACTSC 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rappel involved the defendant, Rappel, who was charged with multiple offences. The charges included murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and contravening a protection order. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where Rappel pleaded guilty to all charges. However, certain facts of the case were disputed, particularly concerning the defendant’s intention and the circumstances leading to the offences. The court was required to determine these disputed facts and subsequently decide on an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the severity and nature of the offences, the defendant’s plea of guilty, and the disputed facts surrounding the incidents. The court needed to balance the principles of justice and deterrence with the defendant’s guilty plea and the need to provide a comprehensive sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the protection order violation on the sentencing process.

In delivering the judgment, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented. The court recognised the defendant’s guilty plea but also emphasised the gravity of the offences committed. The court found that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and violent, warranting a significant sentence. After considering all the evidence and legal principles, the court sentenced Rappel to terms of imprisonment for each offence, reflecting the severity and impact of the crimes. The final orders, as outlined in the judgment, specified the exact sentences imposed on the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [152]-[156]

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.