Legal Research
Cases
Rampe v The Queen

Rampe v The Queen

Case [2018] NSWCCA 163 3 August 2018

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Rampe v R [2018] NSWCCA 163
Hearing dates: 16 July 2018
Decision date: 03 August 2018
Before: Beazley P at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Button J at [60]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence appeal – child sexual assault and child abuse material offences – applicant stepfather of victim – sentenced to 16 years imprisonment with 12 year non-parole period – whether sentencing judge failed to assess objective criminality in relation to indicative sentences – little variation in objective seriousness of each offence – fact that indicative sentences same for multiple offences not indicative of error – where judge imposing aggregate sentence failed to indicate non-parole period that would have been set for each separate sentence – Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36 – failure to set non-parole period does not invalidate sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – nothing less than substantial sentence could reflect applicant's criminality
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61M(2), 66C(2), 91G(1)(a), 91H(2), 578A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 53A
Cases Cited: Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221; 350 ALR 103
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179
R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199
R v NT [2015] NSWCCA 136
R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 219
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Ridgeway v R [2016] NSWCCA 184
Riggio v R [2015] NSWCCA 223
Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rampe (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Kluss (Applicant)
Mr N J Adams (Crown)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associates
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2015/288904
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

30 March 2017

Before:

Sutherland SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/ 288904

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of R A Hulme J. I agree with his Honour’s reasons and proposed orders.”
R A HULME J: On 30 March 2017 his Honour Judge Sutherland SC sentenced an offender ("the applicant") in the District Court at Coffs Harbour for various child sexual assault and child abuse material offences.
There were 15 offences of using a child under the age of 14 to make child abuse material. This is an offence contrary to s 91G(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years and applying to offences committed from 29 June 2015 there is a standard non-parole period of 6 years.
There were 8 offences of indecent assault upon a child under the age of 16 which is…

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 Rampe v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rampe v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 163
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 163
Decision Date: 03 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years for multiple offences of child sexual assault and possession of child abuse material. The applicant was the stepfather of the victim. The decision of the court of appeal was sought to determine whether the sentencing judge had failed to assess the objective criminality in relation to the indicative sentences. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had failed to assess the objective criminality in relation to the indicative sentences and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not fail to assess the objective criminality in relation to the indicative sentences. The court held that the fact that the indicative sentences were the same for multiple offences did not necessarily indicate an error. The court also found that the failure to set a non-parole period for each separate sentence did not invalidate the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that nothing less than a substantial sentence could reflect the applicant's criminality.

The court of appeal dismissed the application for sentence appeal. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no basis to interfere with the sentence. The court held that the sentence reflected the objective criminality of the offences and that there was no error in the assessment of the objective criminality. The sentence was affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders