R v Riddler

99.435

COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA

JONES J

CA No 89 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLER

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 15/10/99
151099 D.1 T9/IRK13 M/T COA248/99
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant is a mature-aged married
man who, in July last year, probably while under the
influence of drugs, forced his way into the apartments of
female sex workers on two occasions, three days apart,
raping and indecently dealing with them and stealing
possessions from them. He was armed with a screw driver,
which he used in threatening his victims.

The prosecutor suggested a range of 12 to 15 years; 15 years being described by her as the "very highest" point. The learned Judge sentenced the applicant to 12 years. One surmises from the sentencing remarks that the Judge worked from 13 years subtracting 12 months to reflect the pleas of guilty.

The applicant now asserts that the sentences are manifestly excessive. He had a substantial prior criminal history including many convictions for offences of violence and he had previously been imprisoned on many occasions. The offences were brutal, premeditated and of substantial duration. The victims have been left with serious psychological adverse consequences.

Allowing also for the particular vulnerability of those victims in light of their occupations, particularly deterrent sentences were called for. The applicant will have to serve 80 per cent of the 12 year terms. It could not possibly sensibly be suggested that 12 years was manifestly excessive for these crimes. Indeed, the Judge 151099 T10/ST9 M/T COA248/99

could reasonably have imposed a substantially greater
penalty, in my view.

The cases of Tomlin CA56 of 1995, Schwartz CA311 of 1996, and Jerome CA230 of 1997 support the view that no serious complaint could reasonably be made by the applicant about these 12 year terms. In his written outline counsel for the Crown raised the possibility of the Court's considering elevating the terms. Especially in light of the applicant's being required to serve 80 per cent of the

12 year term I would not consider that an appropriate
course, and counsel for the respondent did not push it at
the oral hearing before us.

I would refuse the prisoner's application for leave to appeal.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

JONES J: And I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Riddler, the applicant, Robert Leslie Riddler, was convicted for two separate incidents of rape and indecent assault on female sex workers, committed over three days in July the previous year. Riddler was armed with a screwdriver during these attacks and was under the influence of drugs at the time of the crimes. The learned trial judge imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment, with the applicant now asserting that the sentences are manifestly excessive. The applicant appealed against the sentence, claiming it was excessive given the nature of the crimes and his prior criminal history.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate considering his substantial prior criminal history and the vulnerability of the victims, who were sex workers. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court noted the brutal and premeditated nature of the crimes, the applicant's prior criminal history, and the serious psychological impact on the victims. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range suggested by the prosecutor and was supported by previous cases. Therefore, the Court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established