R v Ravet

Case [2011] SASCFC 67

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v RAVET

[2011] SASCFC 67

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice David)

21 July 2011

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS  - TOTALITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE  - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

Appeal against sentence - appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted theft and one count of dangerous driving to avoid a police pursuit - appellant sentenced to 15 years, one month and 21 days' imprisonment to commence at the expiration of a period of unexpired parole of nine months and nine days' imprisonment, making a total of 15 years and 11 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years.

Whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether Judge erred in applying the totality principle before reducing the sentence for the pleas of guilty - whether Judge erred in adopting an arithmetical approach to sentencing.

Licence disqualification reduced to two years to allow the appellant eligibility for driving program whilst in custody.

Appeal dismissed in respect of the sentence - sentence not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), referred to.
R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395, discussed.
R v Rossi (1988) 142 LSJS 451; Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59; R v Bartel [2008] SASC 289; R v Randall-Smith and Davi (2008) SASR 326; R v Copeland (No 2) (2010) 108 SASR 398; R v Major (1998) 70 SASR 488; R v Symonds [1999] SASC 217; R v Nylander (2003) 228 LSJS 24; R v Van Der Horst [2006] SASC 243; R v Power [2003] SASC 288; R v Gibbs (2004) 89 SASR 30, considered.

R v RAVET
[2011] SASCFC 67

Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Sulan and David JJ

  1. DUGGAN J:         I agree with the reasons of Sulan J and his conclusion that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

  2. I also agree that the appeal should be allowed for the limited purpose of reducing the period of disqualification of the appellant’s driving licence to two years to commence on 13 November 2008

  3. SULAN J:             The appellant, Adrian James Ravet, pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted theft and one count of dangerous driving to avoid a police pursuit.  The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated robbery is life imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for the offence of attempted theft is six years and eight months’ imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for the dangerous driving offence is three years’ imprisonment and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for not less than two years.

  4. On 25 January 2011, the appellant was sentenced to 15 years, one month and 21 days’ imprisonment to commence at the…

Continue reading R v Ravet

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ravet [2011] SASCFC 67
Case
[2011] SASCFC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted theft, and one count of dangerous driving to avoid police pursuit. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 15 years and 11 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years. The appeal was heard by Duggan, Sulan, and David JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the sentence manifestly excessive, whether the totality principle was applied correctly before considering the pleas of guilty, and whether an arithmetical approach to sentencing was inappropriately adopted. The offences occurred over a three-week period in late 2008 and involved armed robberies of several hotels and a bottle shop, as well as a dangerous police pursuit that resulted in a collision and minor injuries to occupants of other vehicles. The appellant was 23 years old at the time of sentencing and was on parole when the offences were committed.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding the length of the sentence of imprisonment. While acknowledging the appellant's guilty pleas and the totality principle, the judges found no error in the sentencing judge's approach. The court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity and number of offences, the use of weapons, the impact on victims, and the appellant's prior offending history, including being on parole at the time. However, the appeal was allowed in respect of the licence disqualification period. The court reduced the disqualification period to two years, commencing from the date of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 25 January 2011, the appellant was sentenced to 15 years, one month and 21 days’ imprisonment to commence at the expiration of a period of unexpired parole of nine months and nine days’ imprisonment, making a total of 15 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing Judge fixed a non-parole period of nine years, to commence on the day of sentence. Background The offences were committed over a three-week period between 20 October 2008 and 13 November 2008. The events unfolded in the following way. On 20 October 2008, at about 11.55 pm the appellant and another man entered the Crows Tavern. They were carrying knives. The appellant threatened the staff. One of the members of staff was man-handled by the appellant’s partner. The two offenders escaped, having stolen $47,000. The following morning, the appellant purchased a motor vehicle which he registered in his sister’s name and which was used in subsequent robberies. On 27 October, the appellant drove the vehicle, the numberplates of which had been altered, into the bottle shop area of the Golden Grove Tavern. He produced a knife and demanded money and cigarettes. He stole $1200, a quantity of vodka and cigarettes. About five minutes later, the appellant drove into the bottle shop of the Blue Gums Hotel. He produced a knife and demanded money. A quantity of vodka and $280 cash were taken. At that time, the appellant was accompanied by his stepfather, who was in the car. Later that morning, police observed the appellant’s car. A pursuit ensued, during which the appellant’s vehicle reached speeds of approximately 130 kilometres per hour. The police ceased the pursuit because of the danger that had been created. Shortly thereafter, the appellant’s vehicle crashed into four vehicles which were stationary at an intersection. The persons who were in the four cars with which the appellant’s car collided received minor injuries. The appellant attempted to push the cars out of the way before he and his stepfather alighted and ran off. The appellant’s stepfather was caught shortly thereafter and charged with various offences of armed robbery. He has a long history of prior offending. He denied that he was the passenger in the car. At his trial, he was acquitted. Samples were taken from the car. DNA from those samples was extracted which matched the appellant’s DNA. The appellant continued to evade arrest. On 4 November 2008, the appellant drove into the Settlers Hotel drive-in area, threatened the attendant with a knife and stole $1400 and a quantity of vodka. On 10 November 2008, the appellant rode a pushbike into the bottle area of the Windsor Hotel. He threatened the attendant with a knife and stole $676 and a quantity of vodka. On 13 November 2008, he returned to the Windsor Hotel, but was recognised by one of the employees. He fled the scene. Later that day, he was arrested at a caravan park. He has been in custody ever since. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offences prior to the commencement of the trial. At the date that he was sentenced, the appellant was 23 years of age. As I have indicated, his stepfather, who had also been charged with the earlier offences, was acquitted. At the time of the offences, the appellant was on parole. I will return to those details later in these reasons.The sentence

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I would dismiss the appeal as to the length of the sentence of imprisonment. I would allow the appeal in respect of the licence disqualification.Conclusion The sentence is, therefore, that the appellant be imprisoned for 15 years, one month and 21 days, to commence at the expiration of the unexpired period of parole, making an overall sentence of 15 years and 11 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years’ imprisonment, to commence on 25 January 2011. The appellant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years, to commence on 13 November 2008. DAVID J: I would dismiss the appeal as to the length of the sentence of imprisonment, but allow the appeal against the period of disqualification of the appellant’s driving licence and reduce that period to two years to commence on 13 November 2008. I agree with the reasons of Sulan J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.