Ragg v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 150 6 July 2022

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
Hearing dates: 11 March 2022
Date of orders: 6 July 2022
Decision date: 06 July 2022
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]
N Adams J at [60]
Lonergan J at [61]
Decision:
(1)   The affidavit of Brett James Ragg affirmed 1 March 2022 is rejected;
(2)   Grant leave to appeal;
(3)   Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence appeal – aggregate sentence of 24 years with non-parole period of 18 years for serious sexual assault and physical assaults – applicant brutalised partner over 11‑hour period – whether sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness of sexual assault by reference to facts of other sexual assault committed shortly prior to and shortly after subject offences – facts of other offences relevant to vulnerability of victim and intention to commit further assaults – reliance on wrong maximum penalty and wrong standard non-parole period – error conceded – no lesser sentence warranted in law

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Cases Cited:
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
Singh v R [2021] NSWCCA 96
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 227

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brett Ragg (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
PD Rosser QC; R Hussey (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Nicholas WJ Rolfe & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/335871
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210

Date of Decision:

18 May 2020

Before:

King DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/335871

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The Applicant for leave to appeal pleaded guilty to 13 offences involving the bashing, attempted burning, extremely violent rape and intimidation of his partner. On 18 May 2020, the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 24 years with a non-parole period of 18 years.

The Applicant and the victim had been in an “on and off domestic relationship for approximately 12 years”. They had three children together. The first 11 offences occurred between approximately 8:00am and 7:00pm on 30 October 2018. At around 8:00am…

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 Ragg v R

Details

AGLC: Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 06 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ragg v R, the applicant, Ragg, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court found Ragg guilty of multiple counts of serious sexual assault and physical assault against his partner over an 11-hour period. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 24 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the sexual assault by considering facts of other sexual assaults committed shortly before and after the subject offences. Additionally, the appeal addressed whether the sentencing judge relied on the wrong maximum penalty and standard non-parole period. The High Court of Australia considered these issues in the context of the appeal.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the proper assessment of the objective seriousness of the sexual assault and the relevance of other sexual offences in determining this seriousness. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing judge's reliance on the wrong maximum penalty and non-parole period constituted a significant error warranting a lesser sentence. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate standard of review for sentencing decisions and the extent to which errors in sentencing calculations should impact the final sentence.

The High Court found that while the sentencing judge had indeed relied on the wrong maximum penalty and standard non-parole period, this error did not warrant a lesser sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the other sexual offences was relevant to understanding the vulnerability of the victim and Ragg's intention to commit further assaults, thereby justifying the severity of the sentence. The High Court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and the original sentence should stand. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying statutory maximum penalties and non-parole periods in sentencing but found that the error in this case did not necessitate a reduction in the sentence imposed.

Orders