Legal Research
Cases
Ty Ranger v The Queen

Ty Ranger v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 271 26 October 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0074

TY RANGER	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU and ASHLEY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 October 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 271
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Ranger [2017] VCC 433 (Judge Punshon)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Leave to appeal – Appeal – Intentionally causing serious injury – Unprovoked assault with knife upon five year old child – Superficial injuries – Residual scarring – Limited evidence of psychological impact – Offender aged 23 – Seriously incapacitated by cerebral palsy – Plea of guilty but circumstances of incident not admitted – Reasons for attack unclear – No prior criminal history – Heavy burden of imprisonment – Total effective sentence of nine years with non-parole period of six years and three months’ imprisonment – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Dr M Fitzgerald	Fitzgerald Legal
For the Respondent	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KYROU JA
ASHLEY JA:

Ty Ranger, the applicant, is a 26 year old single man who, on 14 November 2016, pleaded guilty to single charges of intentionally causing serious injury (Charge 1)[1] and knowingly possessing child pornography (Charge 2).[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 16.
[2]Crimes Act 1958 s 70(1).

On 27 March 2017, the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on Charge 1, and one month’s imprisonment on Charge 2. The Judge made no order for cumulation. The total effective sentence was thus nine years’ imprisonment. The Judge fixed a non-parole period of six years and three months’ imprisonment.

The applicant sought leave to appeal on the single ground that the sentence and the non-parole period was, in each case, manifestly excessive. The particulars of complaint were that the Judge had given insufficient weight to:

(i)the applicant’s plea of guilty;
(ii)the applicant’s youthfulness;
(iii)the applicant’s previous good character and lack of prior criminal history;
(iv)the applicant’s adverse personal history;
(v)the applicant’s disabilities — he suffers from cerebral palsy — and the consequent burden of imprisonment upon him;
(vi)the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation,

and excessive weight to:
(vii)aggravating factors;
(viii)community protection.

The application was evidently directed to the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and the non-parole period which (no cumulation having been ordered in respect of the sentence on Charge 2) was closely related to the sentence on Charge 1.

Written submissions in support of the application did not contend that the sentencing Judge had failed to take account of any relevant circumstance, or had taken account of some impermissible circumstance. As the particulars of the ground made clear, the alleged error in the sentence imposed arose from an erroneous weighting of the entire circumstances of the matter. The particulars were simply a suggested explanation for the allegedly erroneous sentence.

A…

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 Ty Ranger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ty Ranger v The Queen [2018] VSCA 271
Case: [2018] VSCA 271
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ty Ranger v The Queen, the appellant, Ty Ranger, was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a five-year-old child through an unprovoked assault with a knife. The incident resulted in superficial injuries and some residual scarring, with limited evidence of psychological impact. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The appellant, who was 23 years old at the time of the offence, had a plea of guilty but did not admit the circumstances of the incident. The reasons for the attack remained unclear, and the appellant had no prior criminal history. The severity of the sentence was a matter of contention, as the appellant was seriously incapacitated by cerebral palsy, which added to the heavy burden of imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriateness of the sentence and the consideration of the appellant's cerebral palsy in the sentencing process. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of six years and three months was excessive or disproportionate given the circumstances. The court also had to consider the appellant's plea of guilty and the lack of prior criminal history, as well as the potential for rehabilitation and the impact of imprisonment on the appellant’s health.

The court found that the original sentence was too severe, taking into account the appellant's age, health, and the lack of clear motives for the offence. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but considered the mitigating factors, including the appellant's plea of guilty and the absence of a criminal record. The court also highlighted the disproportionate impact of imprisonment on the appellant due to his cerebral palsy. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The appellant was re-sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months, reflecting a more balanced consideration of all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court included the re-sentencing of the appellant to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months. This decision demonstrated the court's careful consideration of the appellant's health and the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence committed.

Orders