RAPISTS will face longer jail terms in Victoria if the state's Director of Public Prosecutions succeeds in a campaign to make the assault of a teenage girl a test case for rape sentence reform.
Jeremy Rapke, QC, believes sentences are inadequate and has outlined five new grades of the offence with suggested jail terms for each that would push up the median jail term for rape.
The Age today reveals that Mr Rapke's move is based on the rape of the 17-year-old girl by a stranger in Dandenong in 2008. His office is appealing against the seven-year jail sentence given to Jason Werry, 29, formerly of Doveton, who was convicted last year after pleading not guilty to driving the girl to a park, sexually assaulting her despite her begging him to stop and then abandoning her.
Judge Liz Gaynor sentenced Werry to seven years' jail with a minimum of five years, prompting the prosecution to appeal for a longer sentence.
A Crown prosecutor said on Mr Rapke's behalf that the case was a "stark illustration" of why Victoria's highest court the Court of Appeal "needs to provide guidance as to the yardstick ranges for the crime of rape".
Mr Rapke's move follows reported differences between Attorney-General Rob Hulls and Chief Justice Marilyn Warren on "guideline" sentencing, and sharpens the law and order debate just two months before the state election.
His toughened position on rape sentencing follows a similar move he announced last week against aggravated burglary and other serious offences.
In the Jason Werry appeal papers (seen by The Age), judges have been urged to have "only limited regard to past sentences" when determining an appropriate rape penalty.
Mr Rapke's stand is outlined by Crown prosecutor Brett Sonnet in the grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal against Werry's sentence.
Mr Sonnet quotes the president of that court, Justice Chris Maxwell, from one rape appeal when he seriously questioned the "current sentencing practices for rape". But Mr Sonnet also cites an earlier failed DPP appeal when the court found that while the sentence seven years for penile rape, eight years for digital rape was "very lenient", it fell within the "parameters of current sentencing practices as ascertainable from the published statistics".
Mr Sonnet said the sentence for that rape, whose circumstances he described as "shocking", was "so low as to undermine public confidence in the courts".
"If the current sentencing practices are responsible for the fixing of such a sentence, the time has now come for this [appeal] court to recalibrate such practices," he said.
Mr Sonnet argued that rape had many "profoundly adverse" mental and physical effects on vulnerable victims.
Judge Liz Gaynor last year described Werry's offence as violent, deceptive, premeditated and demeaning and said that abandoning his victim afterwards was "callous in the extreme".
The prosecution submitted that an appropriate sentence was a maximum of up to 12 years.
It said the judge should sentence Werry in conformity with the 25-year maximum sentence for rape and not the current "inadequate" sentencing practices.
But Judge Gaynor rejected the "conformity" submission, and sentenced Werry in line with his defence barrister's submission that he not be sentenced "substantially above" the median rate, then five years.
Werry's solicitor, criminal law specialist Bill Doogue, would not comment on the case, but told The Age his client's appeal against conviction was listed for November.
The DPP's appeal will follow, if necessary.
THE DPP SUGGESTS
2. LOW RANGE
Example young offender or friend, while intoxicated, no violence.
Guilty plea 4-8 years
Not guilty 6-10 years
4. HIGH RANGE
Example Use of weapon, humiliation, degradation, predatory conduct.
Guilty plea 12-16 years
Not guilty 15-20 years
1. EXCEPTIONAL CASES
Example digital rape by mentally impaired offender.
Guilty plea 0-4 years
Not guilty plea 2-6 years
3. MID RANGE
Example perpetrator unknown to victim, with planning and violence.
Guilty plea 8-12 years
Not guilty 10-15 years
5. WORST CASE
Guilty plea 16-20 years
Not guilty 20-25 years
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What sentencing changes is Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions (Jeremy Rapke QC) proposing for rape cases?
Jeremy Rapke QC is campaigning for rape sentence reform in Victoria by asking the Court of Appeal to set clearer “yardstick” ranges. His office has outlined five new grades of the offence (exceptional, low, mid, high and worst-case) with suggested jail-term ranges for guilty pleas and contested convictions designed to push up the median jail term for rape.
Why is the Jason Werry case being used as a test case for rape sentencing reform?
The Werry case involves the 2008 rape of a 17‑year‑old in Dandenong. Jason Werry was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ jail (minimum five). The DPP is appealing that sentence, arguing it is too low and using the case as a ‘stark illustration’ of why the Court of Appeal should provide guidance on appropriate sentencing ranges.
What are the DPP’s five suggested grades and sentence ranges for rape?
The DPP’s suggested grading and ranges (as set out in the appeal material) are: 1) Exceptional – guilty plea 0–4 years, not guilty plea 2–6 years; 2) Low range (e.g. intoxicated young offender, no violence) – guilty plea 4–8 years, not guilty plea 6–10 years; 3) Mid range (e.g. unknown perpetrator, planning and violence) – guilty plea 8–12 years, not guilty plea 10–15 years; 4) High range (e.g. weapon, humiliation, predatory conduct) – guilty plea 12–16 years, not guilty plea 15–20 years; 5) Worst case – guilty plea 16–20 years, not guilty plea 20–25 years.
What argument is the prosecution making to the Court of Appeal about current sentencing practices?
On behalf of the DPP, Crown prosecutor Brett Sonnet argues that current sentencing practices for rape are inadequate, sometimes produce sentences so low they undermine public confidence, and that the Court of Appeal should recalibrate those practices and provide clearer guidance on appropriate yardstick ranges rather than relying heavily on past sentences.
How did Judge Liz Gaynor describe Werry’s offending when she imposed sentence?
Judge Liz Gaynor described Werry’s offence as violent, deceptive, premeditated and demeaning, and said abandoning his victim afterwards was “callous in the extreme.” She sentenced him to seven years with a minimum of five, and rejected the prosecution’s submission that he be sentenced in conformity with the statutory maximum.
Could the DPP’s push for guideline ranges affect public confidence or the broader legal landscape in Victoria?
The prosecution’s material argues exactly that: very low sentences in shocking cases can undermine public confidence. The DPP is seeking Court of Appeal guidance to set clearer sentencing yardsticks, which—if adopted—could change sentencing practice and public expectations about penalties in serious sexual‑offence cases.
How does this sentencing debate connect to Victoria’s political context and the state election?
The DPP’s tougher stance on rape sentencing follows reported differences between Attorney‑General Rob Hulls and Chief Justice Marilyn Warren over guideline sentencing. The issue sharpens the law‑and‑order debate at a politically sensitive time—about two months before the state election—so it has both legal and political relevance.
Is the outcome of the DPP’s appeal certain, and what has happened in past DPP appeals on rape sentences?
The outcome is not certain. The DPP has appealed sentences before with mixed results: one earlier DPP appeal criticised a very lenient sentence but found it still fell within then‑current published sentencing parameters. The current appeal seeks fresh guidance from the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the DPP will follow up, but any change depends on the court’s decision.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
