Legal Research
Cases
Rangihuna v The Queen

Rangihuna v The Queen

Case [2015] NSWCCA 48 31 March 2015

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Rangihuna v R
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 48
Hearing Date(s):	23 March 2015
Date of Orders:	31 March 2015
Decision Date:	31 March 2015
Before:	R A Hulme J at [1] Davies J at [2] Bellew J at [59]
Decision:	(1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – armed robbery – multiple offences – concurrency and accumulation – whether by the accumulation of sentences the sentencing judge overstated the total criminality – discretionary exercise – no error shown
Cases Cited:	Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616 JT v R [2012] NSWCCA 133 McCarthy v R [2011] NSWCCA 64; (2011) 206 A Crim R 131 McIvor v R [2010] NSWCCA 7 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 R v Lesi [2010] NSWCCA 240 R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255; (2007) 174 A Crim R 100 R v Nguyen [2007] NSWCCA 14 R v Smith [2007] NSWCCA 100 R v Taufahema [2010] NSWCCA 241
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Duane Aaron Gabriel Rangihuna (Applicant) Crown (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: K Averre (Applicant) N Williams (Respondent) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2012/31859
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:	District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Freeman DCJ
File Number(s):	2012/31859

JUDGMENT

R A HULME J: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J:   On 24 July 2013 the Applicant pleaded guilty to three offences as follows:
Count 1:   Aggravated assault with intent to rob in company;
Count 2:   Aggravated robbery in company;
Count 3:   Aggravated robbery in company.
The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 25 years imprisonment.
The Applicant asked the Sentencing Judge to take into account two further offences on a Form 1 associated with count 1. Those offences were larceny for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment and aggravated break and enter with intent to steal, the maximum penalty for which is 14 years imprisonment.
On 27 September 2013 Acting Judge Freeman in the District Court sentenced the Applicant as follows:
Count 1:   Taking into account the matters on the Form 1, a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months commencing 31 January 2012 and expiring 30 April 2017 with an additional term of 1 year 9 months expiring 30 January 2019;
Count 2:   A non-parole period of 4 years 3 months commencing 31 January 2015 and expiring 30 April 2019 with an additional term of 17 months expiring 30 September 2020;
Count 3:   A non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing 31 January 2018 and expiring 30 April 2020 with a balance of term of 3 years expiring 30 April 2023.
The Applicant seeks leave to appeal on one ground only:
The sentencing judge erred in…

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 Rangihuna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rangihuna v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 48
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 48
Decision Date: 31 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rangihuna, was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery, including offences that occurred while the appellant was on parole. The High Court of Australia was asked to review the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, specifically focusing on the calculation of the cumulative sentence. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred in determining the appropriate sentence by considering the accumulation of sentences for the multiple offences, which could have overstated the total criminality.

The High Court examined whether the sentencing judge's approach in calculating the cumulative sentence was flawed. The court held that the sentencing judge's task is to assess the total criminality of the offender's conduct, considering the nature and gravity of the crimes committed. The court emphasised that the calculation of a cumulative sentence must be a discretionary exercise, and the imposition of such a sentence does not necessarily indicate an error if the reasoning is sound. The court found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct, taking into account the severity and frequency of the offences, and had exercised the discretion appropriately.

In determining that no error was shown in the sentencing process, the court underscored that the discretionary nature of sentencing allows for a broad range of outcomes, provided the judge's reasoning is rational and based on the facts of the case. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not overstated the total criminality by accumulating the sentences for the multiple offences. The reasoning was consistent with the principles of sentencing for cumulative criminal conduct, and no miscarriage of justice was evident.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The judgment confirmed that the sentencing judge's discretionary exercise in calculating the cumulative sentence was within the permissible bounds of judicial discretion and that no error was shown in the reasoning process.

Orders