Latest / Real Crime with Adam Shand / From the Desk - Ralph Carr: Was Six Years Enough?

Transcript

From the Desk - Ralph Carr: Was Six Years Enough? · Real Crime with Adam Shand

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Apoche Production.
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand. I'm your host,
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Adam Shand. This is my Friday feature from the desk.
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: The jail sentence handed out to Ralph Carr has provoked
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: an entirely predictable and entirely understandable reaction. Six years in
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: prison with a minimum of four for two counts of
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: rape and one count of sexual assault. Many people look
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: at the numbers and say, is that all? On my
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: Facebook page, the rough expectation was about 10 years jail
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: on the bottom. I thought he'd get about seven years
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: with five on the bottom, and I thought I was
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: being conservative and sticking to the median average for rapists
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: in Victoria in recent years.
• 0:48
  Speaker 3: The judge did not agree.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: The 66-year-old bowed his head and shed tears as Judge
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Frank Gucciardo handed down a six-year sentence describing Ralph Carr's
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: conduct as abhorrent and opportunistic.
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: Carr's victim was a young woman who trusted him. She'd
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: gone to his home in connection with a possible job opportunity.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: She was intoxicated, vulnerable, and made it very clear she
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: didn't want a sexual relationship with him. Yet Carr did
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: rape and sexually assault her. County Court Judge Frank Gucciato
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: described Carr's conduct as appalling and called it an egregious
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: breach of trust. Carr pleaded not guilty and continues to
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: maintain his innocence... He intends to appeal his convictions.
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: That's his right.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: That means there was no discount for a guilty plea.
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: There was also, according to the judge, no evidence of
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: remorse or contrition. So why six years? Why could Carr
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: be eligible for parole after only four? The first thing
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: to say is that parole after four years is not guaranteed.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: Four years is the earliest point at which Carr may
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: be considered for release. The parole board will decide whether
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: he is released and under what conditions. But even with
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: that qualification, four years sounds inadequate to many people.
• 2:12
  Speaker 3: I understand that.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: Rape inflicts damage that lasts for decades. The victim doesn't
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: receive a four-year non-parole period for her trauma. She can't
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: simply apply to have the memories, fear and humiliation released
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: from her life. Meanwhile, the offender does eventually leave prison
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: the victim remains trapped by what happened a long time
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: after that. But a judge can't sentence according to public
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: anger alone. Nor can a judge simply look at the
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: maximum penalty of 25 years and choose a number that
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: feels emotionally satisfying. The maximum is reserved for the most serious,
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: conceivable examples of the offence committed by the very worst
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: category of offender. Victorian law also provides a standard sentence
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: of 10 years for a rape falling in the middle
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: range of objective seriousness. But that doesn't mean every rape
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: must attract 10 years. It's a guidepost, not a mandatory minimum.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: Judges must consider the nature and seriousness of the offending,
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: the harm caused, the offender's culpability, any guilty plea, remorse,
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: prior convictions, their age, their health, prospects of rehabilitation, and
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: current sentencing practices. They must also apply principles developed through
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: earlier cases. That's where precedent becomes important. A judge is
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: not absolutely bound to copy the sentence imposed in another case.
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: No two crimes and no two offenders are identical. But
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: judges must take comparable cases and establish sentencing ranges seriously.
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: The law demands consistency. Broadly similar offenders who commit broadly
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: similar offences should receive broadly similar punishment. It also demands proportionality.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: The sentence can't be more severe than the gravity of
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: the offending justifies. And where there are multiple convictions arising
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: from the same episode, the judge must apply what lawyers
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: call the totality principle. Each offence must be punished. But
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: the combined sentence cannot become crushing or disproportionate merely because
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: the individual terms are added together. These principles exist for
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: good reason. Without them, sentences could depend on the personal
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: temperament of the judge. One judge might impose five years,
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: another could impose 15 for essentially the same conduct.
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: That would not be justice, it would be a lottery.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: The latest Victorian sentencing figures demonstrate the range in which
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: judges had generally been operating. Between 2019 and 2024, the
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: median total sentence in Victorian cases where rape was the
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: principal offence was seven years. The median non-parole period was
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: four years and six months. Carr's sentence, six years with
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: four to serve, is below those median figures. However, those
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: statistics include offenders convicted of an average of more than
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: four offences per case. Some involve repeated offending, physical violence,
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: multiple victims or other aggravating features.
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: They can't be used like a price list or a menu.
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: The judge was required to sentence Carr as an individual
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: and to sentence him only for the crimes for which
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: the jury found him guilty. The judge took into account
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: the seriousness of the offending and Carr's exploitation of a
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: vulnerable woman. He also considered Carr's age, 66 years, his
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: lack of previous convictions, his mental health, his prior good
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: character and the public destruction of his reputation and career.
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: Some will ask why those things should matter. Why should
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: a successful man receive credit for the life he enjoyed
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: before committing a terrible crime? And press reporting has highlighted
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: Carr as a nasty, controlling bully, though.
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: Not as a hardened criminal. So it's a fair question,
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: this thing of character.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: Good character can be particularly difficult to accept as mitigation,
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: when the offender's position of trust, power or respectability helped
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: him gain access to the victim, as in Carr's case.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: But the law requires judges to consider the whole person.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: That does not excuse the crime, it helps determine the
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: proportionate punishment.
• 6:41
  Speaker 4: Rape is a crime of violence. This was committed by
• 6:45
  Speaker 4: you in an egregious breach of trust and predatory opportunistic,
• 6:50
  Speaker 4: upon a young woman who admired and had reposed a
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: significant amount of trust in you as an employer and
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: as a friend.
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: Carr's mental health was also raised. His lawyers described his
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: imprisonment as, quote, a living.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: Hell, with Carr reportedly held in lockdown for 23 hours
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: a day because he's classified as a high-profile prisoner. He
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: sobbed when he learned his fate. Many people will feel
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: no sympathy. And prison is not meant to be comfortable.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: But sentencing law says that if imprisonment will be more
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: burdensome for a particular offender because of a serious medical
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: or psychiatric condition, the court must consider it. The judge
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: can't simply ignore evidence because the public dislikes the offender.
• 7:34
  Speaker 3: There's also another question being asked.
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: What happens if other people come forward with allegations against
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: Ralph Carr? I know of at least two others who
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: Carr raped. One has gone to police and made statements
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: because she no longer fears.
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: The power and influence... the car once wielded over her.
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: A second victim would come forward were it not for
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: the fact that this poor young woman took her own life.
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: Coming forward with an allegation would not automatically add time
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: to his sentence. Any new complaint would have to be
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: investigated by police. Prosecutors would then have to decide whether
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: there was sufficient evidence to lay charges and whether prosecution
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: was in the public interest. and Carr would remain entitled
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: to the presumption of innocence on.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: Every new allegation.
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: But if he were charged, tried and found guilty of
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: further sexual offences, he would be sentenced again. And yes,
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: that could keep him in prison for considerably longer. The
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: second judge would take the six-year sentence Carr was already
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: serving into account. The new sentence could be made wholly concurrent,
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: meaning it was served at the same time as the
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: existing sentence, wholly cumulative, meaning it was served after it,
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: or partly cumulative, adding some additional years to his total
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: time in custody.
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: There is no automatic formula.
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: If the new offending involved a different victim, as I
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: believe it does, a separate occasion, or a separate and
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: distinct course of criminal conduct, there would be a strong
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: argument that some additional punishment was required. Otherwise, the later
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: victim's experience might attract no meaningful additional penalties. But the
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: judge would still have to apply the totality principle. The
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: combined sentence would have to remain just and proportionate to
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: the entirety of the proven offending. A new overall non-parole
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: period could also be fixed, potentially delaying the date on
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: which Carr could be first considered for release. So the
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: present six-year sentence is not necessarily the final word if
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: further complainants emerge and further offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: But courts cannot punish Carr now for rumours, suspicions or
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: uncharged allegations. The judge could sentence him only for the
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: three offences established by the jury's verdict. That protection matters,
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: even in a case that generates enormous anger. A person
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: is punished for crimes proved in court, not for what
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: people have done. suspect he may have also done. If
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: other crimes were committed, and I think they were, I
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: urge the victims to come forward and hold this loathsome
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: individual to full account.
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: This is the.
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: Uncomfortable divide between justice as the public feels it and
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: justice as the courts must administer it. The community sees
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: two rapes and a sexual assault and asks, what value
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: has been placed on the victim's suffering? The court must
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: ask a more complex question. What sentence is legally proportionate
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: after every aggravating and mitigating circumstance has been weighed against
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: comparable cases?
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: That does not mean the community is wrong.
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: The public is entitled to believe that sentences for rape
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: are generally too low. It's also entitled to demand that
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: Parliament increase penalties or change the rules governing how they
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: are imposed. But if there is a systemic problem, it
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: can't be solved by demanding that one judge abandon sentencing
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: principles in one notorious case. Politicians make the laws, and
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: we pay them a handsome wage to do that. Appeal
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: courts establish and refine sentencing principles. Trial judges work within
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: that framework. The judge couldn't invent a special penalty for
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: Ralph Carr because his name was prominent or because the
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: public was furious. In fact, punishing Carr more severely because
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: he was famous would be just as legally improper as
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: treating him more leniently because he was powerful. The real
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: question is not simply whether six years feels adequate. It's
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: whether our established sentencing range properly reflects the gravity of rape,
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: the enduring harm suffered by victims and the need for punishment,
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: denunciation and deterrence.
• 11:51
  Speaker 3: On that question, I believe the community.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Has every right to be dissatisfied. Car sentence may be
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: explicable under existing law and sentencing practice. That doesn't necessarily
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: make it emotionally or morally satisfying. It tells us something
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: a lot deeper. Perhaps the problem is not that this
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: judge ignored the system. Perhaps the problem in many eyes
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: is that he followed it. This has been Adam Shan
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: from The Desk for Real Crime. You can follow me
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: and subscribe on Facebook For more stories from Australia's criminal underworld,
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: thanks for listening.
• 12:33
  Speaker 5: Thanks for listening to this episode and supporting this story.
• 12:36
  Speaker 5: Independent storytelling that shapes the world is what Podshape really
• 12:39
  Speaker 5: cares about. Right now, there's thousands of people listening to
• 12:42
  Speaker 5: this show and our other true crimes, and they're completely engaged.
• 12:46
  Speaker 5: More than 10 million Australians listen to podcasts each week.
• 12:50
  Speaker 5: If you've ever thought about advertising your business in a podcast,
• 12:53
  Speaker 5: there's a link to reach out in the show notes
• 12:55
  Speaker 5: or head to Podshape.com to book a free call.