Rankine v Attorney-General (SA) - [2021] SASCA 54

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
RANKINE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA)
[2021] SASCA 54
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)
2 June 2021

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
Appeal against a decision to impose an extended supervision order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’).
The appellant had been sentenced in the District Court to a sentence of imprisonment of eight years and six months, for one count of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm, on 26 April 2013. That sentence followed a long history of violent offending.
On 8 September 2020, following an application by the Attorney-General for South Australia, Lovell J ordered that the appellant be subject to an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’) for a period of two years and six months, pursuant to s 7(4) of the HRO Act. The ESO commenced from the date of judgment.
The appellant now appeals against the ESO.
Held (per the Court), granting an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and dismissing the appeal:
1. The primary judge manifestly gave careful consideration to the matters raised on the appellant’s behalf going to his positive response to counselling and his success under the ISO. The complaint that his Honour did not consider the appellant’s good behaviour is not reasonably arguable.
2. The appellant has not identified any specific hardship that was identified before the primary judge that the primary judge failed to take into consideration.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 7(4)-(6), 12, 22(1), 22(3), referred to.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Thomas v Attorney-General (SA) [2019] SASCFC 21; Attorney-General (SA) v Rankine [2020] SASC 163, considered.

RANKINE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA)
[2021] SASCA 54

Court of Appeal - Criminal: Doyle and Bleby JJA

THE COURT (ex tempore): On 8 September 2020, Lovell J ordered that the appellant be subject to an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’) for a period of two years and six months, pursuant to s 7(4) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’). The ESO commenced from the date of judgment. The Attorney-General had applied for the appellant to be made subject to an ESO for a period of five years.
Previously, on 13 December 2019, Lovell J had made an Interim Supervision Order (‘ISO’), which had remained in place until the determination of the Attorney-General’s application for the ESO.
The appellant had been sentenced in the District Court to a sentence of imprisonment of eight years and six months, for one count of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm, on 26 April 2013. That sentence followed a long history of violent offending.
The appellant now appeals or, alternatively, seeks…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rankine v Attorney-General (SA) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] SASCA 54
Decision Date: 2 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rankine, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a single judge. The dispute concerned the sentencing of Rankine, who had been declared a serious or violent offender.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in their sentencing decision, specifically in relation to the consideration of Rankine's positive response to counselling and his success under an Intensive Supervision Order (ISO). The appeal also raised the issue of whether the primary judge had failed to consider Rankine's good behaviour and any specific hardships identified by the applicant.

The Court found that the primary judge had indeed given careful consideration to the matters of Rankine's response to counselling and his success under the ISO. The Court concluded that the complaint regarding the failure to consider good behaviour was not reasonably arguable. Furthermore, the Court noted that Rankine had not identified any specific hardships that were presented to the primary judge and subsequently overlooked.

Accordingly, the Full Court granted Rankine an extension of time to file his Notice of Appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held (per the Court), granting an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and dismissing the appeal:

1. The primary judge manifestly gave careful consideration to the matters raised on the appellant’s behalf going to his positive response to counselling and his success under the ISO. The complaint that his Honour did not consider the appellant’s good behaviour is not reasonably arguable.

2. The appellant has not identified any specific hardship that was identified before the primary judge that the primary judge failed to take into consideration.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.