R v Latham

[1999] VSCA 132

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Conviction
3. › Application to discharge jury
4. › Objectionable re-examination suggesting recent invention
5. › Whether failure to discharge jury caused miscarriage of justice
6. › Whether matter adequately dealt with by direction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Conviction
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Acquittal on one count and conviction on others
6. › Whether acquittal on anal rape count cast doubt on convictions for vaginal rape, indecent assault and false imprisonment
7. › Separate consideration direction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Conviction
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Sentencing judge's findings on facts
5. › Whether findings adverse to complainant's credibility cast doubt on convictions
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Rape
4. › Digital penetration
5. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
6. › Custodial sentence to be expected for rape whether digital or otherwise
7. › Whether sentence inadequate

Quick Take

A rapist, whether the rape is digital or of a different kind, stands in very grave danger of an immediate custodial sentence, notwithstanding a plea of guilty, previous good character and genuine remorse. R v Soo should not be regarded as of assistance in considering sentences for rape. A sentence of 2 years 3 months with 15 months suspended for digital rape was held to be inadequate rather than excessive.