R v Slater - [2008] SADC 47

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v SLATER
[2008] SADC 47
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Millsteed
29 April 2008
CRIMINAL LAW
Defendant with long criminal history pleaded guilty to rape and aggravated serious criminal trespass - application by Director of Public Prosecutions that the defendant be declared a serious repeat offender pursuant to s20B of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988 - defendant had not committed any serious offence for 16 years - application refused in the exercise of the Court's discretion under s20B.
Criminal Law (Sentencing Act) 1988 s18A, s20A(1), s20A(2)(a), s20B, s20B(1), s20B(2), s20B(2)(b)(ii); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s48, s170(1); Children's Protection and Young Offenders Act 1979 s56, referred to.
Slater v R (1984) 4 Crim R 347; Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348; R v Williams (2006) 96 SASR 226, considered.

R v SLATER
[2008] SADC 47
Introduction

The defendant, Raymond Glen Slater has pleaded guilty to offences of rape[1] and aggravated serious criminal trespass.[2] The Director of Public Prosecutions has filed an application for the defendant to be declared a serious repeat offender pursuant to s20B of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988 (“the Act”). The application and submissions on sentence were heard by me on the same day.
[1] Section 48 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 - maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[2] Section 170(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 - maximum penalty life imprisonment.
Background
The defendant was born on 14 August 1963. He is now 44 years of age. He has a long criminal history which commenced when he was a juvenile. Between the ages of 12 and 17 years he committed numerous offences including the offence of robbery with violence.
On 25 May 1981 the defendant was convicted in the Supreme Court of three counts of rape committed the previous year when he was 17. On that occasion the defendant and five other youths picked up a female hitchhiker and drove her to an isolated area where each of them raped her. The defendant personally performed three acts of vaginal rape. He was sentenced on the basis that he had been the ringleader. The sentencing Judge made an order that the defendant be dealt with as an adult under the Children’s Protection and Young Offenders Act, 1979. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years and six months.
The defendant was released on parole for the rape offences on 7 April 1983. While on parole on 11 May 1983 he committed offences of attempted building break and felony and possession of housebreaking implements. On 1 November 1983, while still on parole, he raped a young woman. He had been drinking with the victim and some other young people outside the Parks Community Centre, Regency Park. He persuaded the victim to go for a walk with him. He took her into some bushes where he pushed her onto 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 Slater

Details

AGLC: R v Slater [2008] SADC 47
Case: [2008] SADC 47
Decision Date: 29 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Glen Slater, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to the offences of rape and aggravated serious criminal trespass. The Director of Public Prosecutions has applied for the defendant to be declared a serious repeat offender under section 20B of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988. The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the defendant's history of criminal conduct warranted a declaration under section 20B of the Act. The court considered the defendant's criminal history, which included multiple serious offences committed against vulnerable women, and his behaviour following his release from prison. The court concluded that while the defendant's criminal history was severe, he had remained crime-free for approximately nine years prior to the current offences, and had not committed a serious offence for over 16 years. The court also noted the defendant's age and potential for rehabilitation, and determined that a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the current offences would sufficiently protect the community. The application by the Director of Public Prosecutions was refused.

The court's reasoning was based on a number of factors, including the defendant's criminal history, the length of time he had remained crime-free, his age, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the severity of the defendant's previous offences, but also recognised that he had demonstrated a capacity for reform. The court found that the imposition of a sentence that exceeded the gravity of the current offences was not warranted in this case. The defendant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Orders