R v AAQ - [2012] QCA 335

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AAQ [2012] QCA 335

PARTIES:

R
v
AAQ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2012
DC No 14 of 2012
DC No 48 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Muir and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child – where rape was committed against five year old boy – where indecent treatment was committed against a girl aged five to seven years over the time of the offences – where applicant aged between 13 and 15 years during the offending – where applicant sentenced to three years detention with a fixed release after serving 50 per cent of that time in custody and 12 months detention for each indecent treatment offence – where no convictions were recorded – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 150(2)(e), s 207(3), s 276B

R v JAJ [2003] QCA 554, cited
R v MAC [2004] QCA 317, cited
R v MBQ; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] QCA 202, distinguished
R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2005] QCA 459, considered
R v S [2003] QCA 107, cited

COUNSEL:

M A Green for the applicant (pro bono)
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Gotterson JA that this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

The applicant was sentenced to three years detention with release after serving 50 per cent of that sentence. As he had not committed any prior offences, no conviction was recorded. Under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), a detention order should be imposed only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.[1] In all the circumstances of this case outlined by Gotterson JA in his reasons, the primary judge was entitled to conclude that detention was the only appropriate sentence and that this was the shortest justifiable period of detention.
[1]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 3, s 150(2)(e) and Sch 1 – Charter of Youth Justice Principles, para 17.

MUIR JA: I agree with that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Gotterson JA.

GOTTERSON JA: On 5 April 2012, the applicant, AAQ, pleaded guilty to one count of rape and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age on an indictment dated 30 March 2012, and on 10 August 2012 to a further count…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v AAQ

Details

AGLC: R v AAQ [2012] QCA 335
Case: [2012] QCA 335
Decision Date: 4 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, AAQ, appealed against the sentence imposed following their conviction for one count of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child. The rape was committed against a five-year-old boy, while the indecent treatment offences were committed against a girl aged between five and seven years over the period of the offending. The applicant was aged between 13 and 15 years during the commission of these offences. The sentence imposed was three years detention with a fixed release after serving 50 per cent of that time in custody, and 12 months detention for each indecent treatment offence, with no convictions recorded.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the age of the applicant at the time of the offences, and the overall sentence imposed. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation, particularly given the applicant's young age at the time of the offending.

In assessing the appeal, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences, particularly the rape of a young child. It noted that the sentence was within the statutory maximum for the offences and that it included a fixed release date, which provided the applicant with a clear path to rehabilitation. The court also considered the applicant's age at the time of the offences and the fact that no convictions were recorded. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and did not amount to a manifest excess. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v AAQ [2012] QCA 335
PARTIES:	R v AAQ (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 206 of 2012 DC No 14 of 2012 DC No 48 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Muir and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child – where rape was committed against five year old boy – where indecent treatment was committed against a girl aged five to seven years over the time of the offences – where applicant aged between 13 and 15 years during the offending – where applicant sentenced to three years detention with a fixed release after serving 50 per cent of that time in custody and 12 months detention for each indecent treatment offence – where no convictions were recorded – whether sentence manifestly excessive Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 150(2)(e), s 207(3), s 276B R v JAJ [2003] QCA 554, cited R v MAC [2004] QCA 317, cited R v MBQ; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] QCA 202, distinguished R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2005] QCA 459, considered R v S [2003] QCA 107, cited
COUNSEL:	M A Green for the applicant (pro bono) D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent