R v BDQ

The case of R v BDQ involved the applicant appealing against a sentence imposed following his conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, two counts of rape, and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who is a lineal descendant. The applicant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for the first count and declared to have been convicted of a serious violent offence. The remaining three counts were convicted but not further punished. The appeal was against the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentence was more severe than necessary, given his medical conditions and the precedent set by other cases. The court was required to determine if the sentence fell outside the range of appropriate sentences for such offences.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the offending, considering it more severe than cases with longer periods of offending. It noted the statutory requirement to treat domestic violence offences as an aggravating factor, reflecting community attitudes towards such crimes. The court concluded that the sentence, while at the upper end of what might be appropriate, was within the sentencing discretion and did not exceed the range of sentences that could be imposed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and denied leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.