SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v AQ [2003] QCA 479
PARTIES:
R
v
AQ
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 264 of 2003
DC No 19 of 2003DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at EmeraldDELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
3 November 2003DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 November 2003
JUDGES:
McPherson JA, Williams JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Grant the application.
2. Allow the appeal.3. Vary the sentence imposed below by suspending the term of imprisonment forthwith with an operational period of 12 months.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant and complainant had been in a relationship – where complainant had terminated relationship – where applicant convicted of two counts of indecent assault against complainant – where applicant aged 31 with no previous criminal history – where applicant a hard worker and paying maintenance for a 12-year-old child – whether trial judge took account of matters personal to applicant
R v J [2002] QCA 048; CA No 3 of 2002; 22 February 2002, considered
R v Jones [2003] QCA 450; CA No 285 of 2003; 16 October 2003, distinguishedCOUNSEL:
A W Moynihan for the applicant
M Byrne for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WHITE J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Emerald on the 11th of August 2003 to two counts of indecent assault on the female complainant on the 7th of December 2002. The applicant was aged 31 years at the time of the offences. He had no previous convictions and he was employed by a family company as an excavator truck driver around mines in Central Queensland.
The complainant, who was the same age as the applicant, commenced a relationship with him in Brisbane at about the beginning of 2000. The applicant lived in Blackwater and drove to Brisbane to see her regularly. After a few months, the complainant moved with her two children, aged 9 and 10, to live in Blackwater with the applicant. At the beginning of 2002, she bought her own house in Blackwater and the applicant moved into the home with her.
The relationship broke down in about mid last year, although it seems that there had been problems previously. While the applicant was away working near Winton, the complainant moved his belongings to the family business premises where she also worked as a book and record keeper. They eventually resumed their relationship about 4 to 6 weeks or so prior to the subject complaints being made. The applicant would stay at the complainant’s house over night and consensual sexual relations occurred. Whilst…
Continue reading R v AQ
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v AQ [2003] QCA 479
- Case
- [2003] QCA 479
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had taken into account matters personal to the appellant and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered his personal circumstances, including his employment status, his role as a father, and his lack of a criminal history. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences.
The Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the personal circumstances of the appellant. The Court observed that while the offences were serious, the appellant's personal circumstances, including his employment status, his role as a father, and his lack of a criminal history, warranted consideration. The Court held that the trial judge's failure to adequately consider these matters constituted a significant error. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was excessive, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances and the nature of the offences.
The Court granted the appeal, allowed the appeal, and varied the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Court suspended the term of imprisonment forthwith with an operational period of 12 months. This decision recognised the importance of considering personal circumstances in sentencing and the need for proportionality in the imposition of sentences for sexual offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant the application.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Vary the sentence imposed below by suspending the term of imprisonment forthwith with an operational period of 12 months.
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.