R v BCA

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the applicant, BCA, was convicted following a trial on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child with aggravation, four counts of indecent treatment of a child with aggravation, and four counts of sodomy with aggravation. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on all counts, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The sentencing judge did not make formal findings as to the duration of the sexual relationship or the nature and frequency of the unlawful acts. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing proceeding miscarried due to the lack of findings by the sentencing judge, and that a different sentence should be imposed upon the applicant in exercising the sentencing discretion afresh.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing proceeding miscarried and, if so, what sentence should be imposed upon the applicant. The court considered whether the lack of findings by the sentencing judge was a miscarried proceeding and, if so, what sentence should be imposed upon the applicant in exercising the sentencing discretion afresh. The court held that the lack of findings by the sentencing judge was a miscarried proceeding. The court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence on the applicant in substitution for the sentences set aside.

The court set aside the sentences on counts 1 and counts 5 to 12 in the indictment and, in substitution for those sentences, imposed the following sentences: (a) on count 1, sentence the applicant to 10 years imprisonment; (b) on each of counts 6, 8, 10 and 12, sentence the applicant to six years imprisonment; (c) on each of counts 5, 7, 9 and 11, sentence the applicant to three years imprisonment; and (d) each sentence is to be served concurrently with each other sentence. The court held that the applicant’s offending was serious and warranted a substantial sentence of imprisonment. However, the court considered that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was excessive and that a lesser sentence was appropriate. The court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence on the applicant in substitution for the sentences set aside.