Ranger v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0074

TY RANGER

THE QUEEN

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)

---

JUDGE:	SANTAMARIA JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 191
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Ranger (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Punshon, 27 March 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – One charge of intentionally causing serious injury – One charge of knowingly possessing child pornography – Sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Effect of current sentencing practices on sentence – DPP (Cth) v Brown [2017] VSCA 162 –Nash v The Queen (2013) 40 VR 134, Tasevski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 135, Webster v The Queen [2016] VSCA 329, May-Jordan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 30 considered – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
No appearances

SANTAMARIA JA:

The applicant, now aged 25, pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury and one charge of knowingly possessing child pornography.

The applicant was sentenced in the County Court as follows:

Charge on indictment Offence Maximum penalty Sentence Cumulation

1 Intentionally cause serious injury [Crimes Act 1958
s 16] 20 years’ imprisonment 9 years’ imprisonment Base sentence

2 Knowingly possessing child pornography [Crimes Act 1958 s 70(1)] 10 years’ imprisonment 1 month imprisonment Concurrent

Total effective sentence: 9 years’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment

Pre-sentence detention declaration: 492 days

Section 6AAA Statement 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Other relevant orders
Forfeiture of items seized

• With respect to charge 2, declared to be a registrable offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 with obligations to report for 8 years.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal his sentence.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant and the victim, a five-year-old girl, lived in different units within a block of apartments. On the afternoon of 22 November 2015, the victim was playing outside her unit, where she then lived with her mother and older sister. The applicant gestured to the victim to come to where he was, outside his unit. She walked over to him, and he cuddled her and led her into his unit. Once inside, the applicant obtained a pocket knife, sat on the victim and stabbed her repeatedly. He also removed her t-shirt, touched her chest and groin and removed her shoes. He attempted to remove her shorts, but was unable to do so because she had her legs closed. The stabbing continued. In the struggle, the victim was able to bite the applicant on the lip, causing him to drop the knife. She was able to escape and flee…

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 Ranger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ranger v The Queen [2017] VSCA 191
Case: [2017] VSCA 191
Decision Date: 20 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ranger v The Queen involved the appellant, who was sentenced to a total of nine years in prison, with a non-parole period of six years and three months, for two charges: one of intentionally causing serious injury and the other of knowingly possessing child pornography. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal, where the primary concern was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the current sentencing practices and relevant case law.

The legal issues the court needed to address were primarily focused on the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the crimes committed. The court was required to assess if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive by considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the sentencing principles and authorities that are relevant to such cases. The court needed to ensure that the sentence was appropriate and balanced, considering the gravity of the crimes and the sentencing practices as reflected in precedents such as DPP (Cth) v Brown, Nash v The Queen, Tasevski v The Queen, Webster v The Queen, and May-Jordan v The Queen.

The court examined the appellant's sentence in the context of the two charges, considering the principles of totality and proportionality. It reviewed the severity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. It was deemed to be within the range of appropriate sentences for the crimes committed, taking into account the relevant case law and the current sentencing practices. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of nine years in prison with a non-parole period of six years and three months was upheld. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to balance the various considerations involved in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes while also adhering to the principles established in relevant case law.

Orders