R v BAY

Case [2005] QCA 427


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BAY [2005] QCA 427

PARTIES:

R
v
BAY

(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 110 of 2005
DC No 110 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Atkinson J
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 granted

2.   Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 12 years and substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 10 years on count one and setting aside the sentence of 10 years and substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 8 years on counts 2-37

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – MAXIMUM SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of one count of maintaining a relationship with a child under the age of 16 years with  circumstances of aggravation, three counts of incest, four counts of sexual assault and 29 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years – where the penalty for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child was increased twice during the period of the offending – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – where the applicant pleaded guilty after the trial had commenced but meant that the complainant and her family were not required to give evidence – where the means of mitigating the sentence are limited as the applicant is convicted of a serious violent offence and must serve 80 per cent of the sentence – amelioration of the sentence requires a reduction to the head sentence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 222, s 229B
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339, considered
R v AP
[2003] QCA 445; CA No 435 of 2002 and 133 of 2003, 17 October 2003, considered
R v B
[1999] QCA 372; CA No 394 of 1998, 10 September 1999, considered
R v BAW [2005] QCA 334; CA No 116 of 2005, 9 September 2005, considered
R v D [2003] QCA 426; CA No 211 of 2003, 25 September 2003, considered
R v DAF [2004] QCA 368; CA No 237 of 2004, 8 October 2004, considered
R v F [1996] QCA 490; CA No 418 of 1996, 6 December 1996, considered
R v GQ [2005] QCA 53; CA No 430 of 2004, 4 March 2005, considered
R v Hoban [2000] QCA 384; CA No 173 of 2000, 22 September 2000, considered
R v KAI [2002] QCA 378; CA No 201…

Continue reading R v BAY

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v BAY [2005] QCA 427
Case
[2005] QCA 427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted of one count of maintaining a relationship with a child under the age of 16 years with circumstances of aggravation, three counts of incest, four counts of sexual assault and 29 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence, claiming that the sentence of 12 years imprisonment for the first count and 10 years for the remaining counts was manifestly excessive and should be reduced. The applicant also claimed that the sentence should have reflected the fact that he entered a plea of guilty after the trial had commenced, which meant that the complainant and her family were not required to give evidence.

The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence should have reflected the applicant's plea of guilty. The court noted that the penalty for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child was increased twice during the period of the offending. The court also noted that the applicant's means of mitigating the sentence were limited as he was convicted of a serious violent offence and must serve 80 per cent of the sentence. The court further noted that amelioration of the sentence required a reduction to the head sentence.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced. The court held that the sentence should have reflected the applicant's plea of guilty, which meant that the complainant and her family were not required to give evidence. The court held that the sentence should be reduced to 10 years imprisonment for the first count and 8 years for the remaining counts. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence, substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 10 years on count one and setting aside the sentence of 10 years and substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 8 years on counts 2-37.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 12 years and substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 10 years on count one and setting aside the sentence of 10 years and substituting in lieu thereof imprisonment for a period of 8 years on counts 2-37

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.