Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150

Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150

Although the sentencing judge materially erred by relying on an incorrect maximum penalty for intimidation and by proceeding on erroneous standard non-parole periods for two attempt offences, the judge did not err in treating the related sexual offences and surrounding violence as relevant to objective seriousness because they bore on the victim's vulnerability, the applicant's knowledge of that vulnerability, and his intention from the outset to commit the succession of rapes. The proposed additional affidavit evidence was inadmissible because it was not relevant to an undisputed finding and otherwise sought to expand the case on appeal. On the Court's independent sentencing assessment,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Aggregate Sentence Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'domestic Violence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'maximum Penalty' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'domestic Violence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'maximum Penalty' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'manifest Excess']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Aggregate Sentence Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of each individual offence of sexual assault by reference to the other offences.' 'Whether the errors in relation to the wrong maximum penalty and the wrong standard non-parole period were capable of affecting the aggregate sentence.' 'Whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced was admissible on resentence.' 'Whether a lesser sentence was warranted in law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge materially erred by relying on an incorrect maximum penalty for intimidation and by proceeding on erroneous standard non-parole periods for two attempt offences, the judge did not err in treating the related sexual offences and surrounding violence as relevant to objective seriousness because they bore on the victim's vulnerability, the applicant's knowledge of that vulnerability, and his intention from the outset to commit the succession of rapes. The proposed additional affidavit evidence was inadmissible because it was not relevant to an undisputed finding and otherwise sought to expand the case on appeal. On the Court's independent sentencing assessment,...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The affidavit of Brett James Ragg affirmed 1 March 2022 is rejected;' 'Grant leave to appeal;' 'Appeal dismissed.']