R v AS

[2004] QCA 220

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

R v AS [2004] QCA 220

PARTIES: 

R
v
AS
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: 

CA No 160 of 2004 DC No 145 of 2004

DIVISION: 

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: 

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING 
COURT: 

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 

2 July 2004

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

23 June 2004

JUDGES: 

McPherson, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: 

1.	Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2.	Appeal allowed to the extent of ordering that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment imposed for the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge be suspended after the appellant has served 6 months of that term, such suspension to be for a period of 2 years

CATCHWORDS: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where appellant convicted on own pleas of guilty of one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 16 years, two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years and two counts of permitting indecent dealing by a child under 16 years – where sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for unlawful carnal knowledge – where mitigating circumstances - whether appropriate recognition given to mitigating circumstances balanced with the need for general deterrence for this type of offence would have been achieved by a partly suspended sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v C [2002] QCA 46; CA No 369 of 2001, 22 February
2002, considered
R v T; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 132; CA No
30 of 2002, 12 April 2002, considered

COUNSEL: 

A J Morris QC, with A F Maher, for the applicant/appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS: 

Lake Lawyers for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

1. McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Jerrard JA and those of Williams JA. The application should be disposed of as proposed in the reasons of Jerrard JA.

2. WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA. I agree with him that there were a number of unusual features about this case which justified placing more emphasis on the mitigating factors present. I would add to the facts outlined by Jerrard JA that the material placed before the sentencing judge did not indicate the circumstances in which the commission of the offences came to light. Further, nothing in the nature of a victim impact statement was placed before the court.

3. Of the authorities referred to R v C [2002] QCA 46 is, in my view, the most helpful. That was a worse case because of the breach of trust involved. Also the offender’s criminal history was far worse; it included amongst other convictions one for assault occasioning bodily harm and another for aggravated assault on a female for which he was sentenced to…