R v Abdullah

Case [2023] QCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Abdullah [2023] QCA 189

PARTIES:

R
v
ABDULLAH, Irshadul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 130 of 2023
DC No 2426 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 August 2023 (Moynihan KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2023

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Flanagan JA and Buss AJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was a 52 year old tow-truck driver who sexually assaulted two young women outside their homes, on two separate occasions separated by less than three months, when he was negotiating with them about a price for their cars – where the second offence occurred when the applicant was on bail for the first offence – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after five months – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the count 1 complainant had suffered harm and been adversely affected as a result of the offending, in circumstances where the count 1 complainant had not provided a victim impact statement – whether there was an error of fact – where the applicant had no criminal history – where a psychologist’s report tendered at the sentence stated that the applicant denied that his actions were sexually motivated, and described the applicant as lacking insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour – where the psychologist determined that the applicant required education and counselling to address the lack of insight into his offending, but the applicant had taken no steps to obtain education or counselling prior to sentencing – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(2), s 132C(5)(c)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(c)(i), s 179I, s 179K, s 179K(5)

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Al Aiach [2007] 1 Qd R 270; [2006] QCA 157, distinguished
R v Baldwin[2014] QCA 186, distinguished
R v Bradford[2007] QCA 293, distinguished
R v Demmery[2005] QCA 462, distinguished
R v Hatch[1999] QCA 495, distinguished
R v Murphy[2011] QCA 363, distinguished
R v Murray[2005] QCA 188, considered
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Quinlan[2012] QCA 132, distinguished
R v Rogan[2021] QCA 269, considered
R v Sologinkin[2020] QCA 271, considered
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

J Robson for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public…

Continue reading R v Abdullah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Abdullah [2023] QCA 189
Case
[2023] QCA 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a 52-year-old tow-truck driver, was convicted of sexually assaulting two young women on separate occasions. The first incident occurred when the applicant was negotiating the price for one woman's car. The second offence took place while the applicant was on bail for the first offence. He pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after five months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. He contended that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the first complainant had suffered harm and been adversely affected by the offending, particularly since she did not provide a victim impact statement. The applicant also argued that the sentence was excessive given his lack of criminal history and his denial of the sexually motivated nature of his actions, as stated in a psychologist’s report.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, focusing on whether the sentencing judge made an error of fact. The applicant argued that the judge's conclusion about the harm suffered by the first complainant was incorrect because no victim impact statement was provided. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the psychologist's report indicated he lacked insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour and required education and counselling, neither of which he had undertaken prior to sentencing. The court considered these arguments alongside the nature and circumstances of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that the first complainant had suffered harm, as this could be reasonably inferred from the nature of the offence and the evidence presented. The court also noted that the lack of a victim impact statement did not preclude a finding of harm. Regarding the sentence, the court held that it was not manifestly excessive. The judge had considered the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation, and the sentence reflected a balanced approach to these considerations. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant interference.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.