SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | PR v THE QUEEN |
Citation: | [2014] ACTCA 40 |
Hearing Date(s): | 5 May 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 29 August 2014 |
Before: | Refshauge, Burns and Ross JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Excessive or Inadequate Damages – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentencing a process of instinctive synthesis – No error in not identifying mathematically the amount of the reduction in sentence given for delay – Sentence imposed not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 61(1), 62] |
| Cases Cited: | Blanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303 |
Parties: | PR (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Sabharwal (Appellant) Mr J White (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid Office (ACT) (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 62 of 2013 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Before: Nield AJ Date of Decision: 12 September 2013 Case Title: The Queen v PR Court File Number(s): SCC No 37 of 2012 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
Between 1 October 1989 and 14 September 1991, the appellant, PR, committed two serious sexual offences on his step-daughter, the complainant.
Although his then wife confronted PR with these offences in September 1991, when he left their home and moved to Western Australia, and the complainant made disclosure to the Child At Risk Assessment Unit of The Canberra Hospital later that year, no police action appears to have been taken until police laid informations on 24 August 2011.
PR was arrested in Western Australia on 24 December 2011, extradited to the Territory and, on 16 January 2012, was charged with and pleaded not guilty to various charges. He was committed to trial to the Supreme Court on 20 February 2012.
A trial of the offences was set for 22 July 2013, but, on 28 May 2013, his counsel informed the Court PR would plead guilty to the offences on which he was ultimately sentenced. This was accepted in satisfaction of the indictment.
Thus, on 9 July 2013, he pleaded guilty to the offence of committing, between 1 October 1989 and 20 February 1991, an act of indecency on the complainant, then under the age of ten years and, to the offence of engaging between 1 February and 14 September 1991, in sexual intercourse with the complainant, still under the age of ten and, to his knowledge, his step-child, an offence known as incest.
The charged offence of committing an act of indecency is an offence against…
Continue reading PR v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40
- Case
- [2014] ACTCA 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was demonstrably excessive, thereby constituting an error of law. This required the Court to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the weight given to factors such as delay in the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that sentencing is an exercise of "instinctive synthesis," where the sentencing judge weighs all relevant factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence. The Court found no error in the District Court judge's approach, specifically noting that it was not necessary to mathematically quantify the reduction in sentence attributed to the delay in proceedings. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and therefore did not warrant appellate intervention.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.