Legal Research
Cases
Trangle (a pseudonym) v R

Trangle (a pseudonym) v R

Case [2021] VSCA 210 3 August 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0041

MICHAEL TRANGLE (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure there is no possibility of identification of the victim of sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the applicant’s name.

---

JUDGES:	McLEISH, SIFRIS and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 August 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 210
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VCC 2052 (Judge Smallwood)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of three charges of causing injury intentionally, six charges of indecent act with a child, 16 charges of incest, and one charge of assault (26 charges) – Whether verdict on one charge of incest unsafe and unsatisfactory – Whether open to jury to accept that penetration of complainant’s anus occurred – In context, complainant’s apparent denial of penetration a denial only of full penetration – Trial judge and defence counsel accepted that if complainant’s evidence accepted penetration established – Plainly open to jury to accept that penetration occurred – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Base sentence 12 years’ imprisonment on one charge of incest – 12 year sentence on incest course of conduct charge and 10 year sentences on other incest charges with cumulation ranging from 3 to 18 months – Total effective sentence 25 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period 19 years – Whether individual sentences, orders for cumulation, total effective sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive – Current sentencing practices only one factor – Sentences open –Extremely serious protracted offending – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed – DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148 – DPP v Dalgliesh(a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428 – Grantley (a pseudonym) v the Queen [2018] VSCA 112 – DPP v Polat (a pseudonym) [2020] VSCA 174, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C K Wareham	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P L Bourke QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

McLEISH JA
SIFRIS JA
OSBORN JA:

Introduction

Following a trial in the County Court before his Honour Judge Smallwood and a jury, the applicant was convicted of a total of 26 offences against his two step-daughters, comprising:

(a) three charges of causing injury intentionally; [2]
[2]Crimes Act 1958 s 18.

(b) six charges of indecent act with a child under the age of 16; [3]

(c) 16 charges of incest; [4] and

(d) one charge of common assault.[5]

[3]Crimes Act 1958 s 47(1).

[4]Crimes Act1958 s 44(1).

[5]Contrary to common law.

On 29 November 2019, the applicant was sentenced as follows:[6]
[6]DPP v Trangle (a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 2052 (‘Sentencing Remarks’).

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1. Causing injury intentionally 10 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment -

2. Causing injury intentionally 10 years’ imprisonment 12 months’ imprisonment 3 months

3.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1.	Causing injury intentionally	10 years’ imprisonment	6 months’ imprisonment	-
2.	Causing injury intentionally	10 years’ imprisonment	12 months’ imprisonment	3 months
3.

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 Trangle (a pseudonym) v R

Details

AGLC: Trangle (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 210
Case: [2021] VSCA 210
Decision Date: 3 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appellant who was convicted on 26 charges, including causing injury intentionally, indecent acts with a child, incest, and assault. The appellant sought to appeal both the conviction and the sentence. Regarding the conviction, the appellant contended that the verdict on one charge of incest was unsafe and unsatisfactory, arguing that it was not open to the jury to accept that penetration of the complainant’s anus occurred based on the complainant’s evidence. The appellant submitted that the complainant's denial of penetration was a denial of full penetration only, and thus, the jury should not have accepted the possibility of penetration.

The court examined the evidence and the arguments presented by both the trial judge and defence counsel, concluding that the jury was plainly open to accept that penetration had occurred if they accepted the complainant’s evidence. The court found that the jury's verdict on the charge of incest was safe and satisfactory, and therefore, leave to appeal against the conviction was refused. In relation to the sentence, the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offences, and the current sentencing practices, ultimately finding that the sentences and non-parole period were not manifestly excessive. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, as the court determined that the sentences reflected the gravity of the appellant’s extremely serious and protracted offending.

No specific orders were made as the appeal against the conviction was dismissed and the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed. The court's decision was influenced by previous cases such as DPP v Dalgliesh and Grantley v the Queen, which provided guidance on the assessment of sentence severity and the appropriate consideration of cumulative sentences in similar contexts.

Orders