Legal Research
Cases
Stafford v The King

Stafford v The King

Case [2022] VSCA 229 20 October 2022

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0176

MICHAEL STAFFORD	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST AP and NIALL JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 October 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 229
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Stafford (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gamble, 2 September 2021)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of rape by compelling sexual penetration and found guilty of one charge of attempted rape and one charge of rape – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Where inordinate delay – Appeal allowed.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr C Wareham
Respondent:		Mr J McWilliams
Solicitors
Appellant:	Anthony Isaacs Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST AP
NIALL JA:

On 8 July 2022, Niall JA gave leave to the appellant to appeal against his sentence on the ground that the total effective sentence and its individual components are manifestly excessive. A description of the facts and a summary of reasons for sentence were set out in the reasons for giving leave and the following is a recapitulation of those matters.
On 14 July 2021, after a seven day trial, the appellant was found guilty of one charge of attempted rape and one charge of rape. The appellant also pleaded guilty to one charge of rape by compelling sexual penetration. The appellant’s offending related to two victims and occurred at different times.
On 2 September 2021, the judge sentenced the appellant as follows:

Charge on Indictment J12695609	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Rape by compelling sexual penetration	25 years	5 years	2 years
Charge on Indictment J12695609.A	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
3	Attempted rape	20 years	4 years	12 months
4	Rape	25 years	6 years	Base
Total Effective Sentence:		9 years
Non-Parole Period:		6 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		50 days
Section 6AAA Statement to charge 1 on indictment J12695609:		Total Effective Sentence for that offence: 7 years 6 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Sentenced as a serious sexual offender on charge 4 on indictment J12695609.A

The appellant appeals against his sentence on the following ground of appeal:
In all the circumstances, when regard is had to:
(a)the appellant’s plea of guilty on charge 1 (rape by compelling sexual penetration);
(b)the perceptible discount to be afforded to pleas of guilty during the COVID-19 pandemic;
(c)the delay;
(d)the appellant’s personal circumstances;
(e)the appellant’s limited criminal history; and
(f)the additional burden of custody
the individual sentences and orders for cumulation are productive of a total effective sentence and non-parole period that is manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of offending

Charge 1

On 10 February 2017, the appellant and a former work colleague, JP, spent the night drinking with other friends at a number of Melbourne bars. The two returned to the appellant’s apartment sometime after 11.00 pm. JP fell asleep fully clothed on a couch in the lounge room. He woke at approximately 7.00 am on…

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 Stafford v The King

Details

AGLC: Stafford v The King [2022] VSCA 229
Case: [2022] VSCA 229
Decision Date: 20 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case faced a criminal appeal concerning the sentence imposed upon him. He had pleaded guilty to one count of rape by compelling sexual penetration and was found guilty of one count of attempted rape and one count of rape. The primary concern of this appeal was the severity of the sentence, which the appellant argued was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in the Australian judicial system.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case and the delay in bringing the appeal to court. The court was tasked with examining whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice due to the delay. The appellant's legal team argued that the delay in the appeal had exacerbated the harshness of the sentence, leading to a potential miscarriage of justice.

The court acknowledged the delay in the appeal, which was significant and inordinate. The High Court determined that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the principles of proportionality and the individual circumstances of the appellant when imposing the sentence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was deemed to be manifestly excessive. This decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, particularly in cases where significant delays occur before an appeal is heard.

The High Court ordered that the appellant's sentence be reconsidered by the trial court, with the appropriate consideration given to the delay and the principles of sentencing. This decision underscored the need for courts to carefully weigh the factors involved in sentencing, especially in light of any delays that may have an impact on the fairness of the proceedings.

Orders