The Queen v Riddler
[1999] QCA 435
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- The Queen v Riddler[1999] QCA 435
- Add to List
The Queen v Riddler[1999] QCA 435
The Queen v Riddler[1999] QCA 435
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
JONES J
CA No 89 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.
ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLERApplicant
BRISBANE
DATE 15/10/99
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant is a mature-aged married man who, in July last year, probably while under the influence of drugs, forced his way into the apartments of female sex workers on two occasions, three days apart, raping and indecently dealing with them and stealing possessions from them. He was armed with a screw driver, which he used in threatening his victims.
The prosecutor suggested a range of 12 to 15 years; 15 years being described by her as the "very highest" point. The learned Judge sentenced the applicant to 12 years. One surmises from the sentencing remarks that the Judge worked from 13 years subtracting 12 months to reflect the pleas of guilty.
The applicant now asserts that the sentences are manifestly excessive. He had a substantial prior criminal history including many convictions for offences of violence and he had previously been imprisoned on many occasions. The offences were brutal, premeditated and of substantial duration. The victims have been left with serious psychological adverse consequences.
Allowing also for the particular vulnerability of those victims in light of their occupations, particularly deterrent sentences were called for. The applicant will have to serve 80 per cent of the 12 year terms. It could not possibly sensibly be suggested that 12 years was manifestly excessive for these crimes. Indeed, the Judge could reasonably have imposed a substantially greater penalty, in my view.
The cases of Tomlin CA56 of 1995, Schwartz CA311 of 1996, and Jerome CA230 of 1997 support the view that no serious complaint could reasonably be made by the applicant about these 12 year terms. In his written outline counsel for the Crown raised the possibility of the Court's considering elevating the terms. Especially in light of the applicant's being required to serve 80 per cent of the 12 year term I would not consider that an appropriate course, and counsel for the respondent did not push it at the oral hearing before us.
I would refuse the prisoner's application for leave to appeal.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
JONES J: And I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.