R v BDU

[2022] QCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BDU [2022] QCA 174

PARTIES:

R
v
BDU
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2021
DC No 344 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 24 June 2021 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2022

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Flanagan JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment on a count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and lesser concurrent terms for related offences of a sexual nature after conviction by a jury after a trial – where the maintaining period was approximately three years – where the offending involved the applicant’s biological daughter and a significant breach of trust – where the complainant was aged between four and around eight years of age at the time of the offending – where the maintaining offence involved penile-vaginal rape – where the offending was described as serious, horrendous and of an abhorrent nature – where the applicant referred to the factors set out in R v SAG [2004] QCA 286 – where the applicant submits that the offending in the authorities where a similar sentence was imposed was more serious – where the applicant submits that to justify a sentence of fourteen years there is usually an additional factor not present in this case – where the applicant submits the appropriate sentence range is ten to twelve years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v AP[2003] QCA 445, considered
R v BAY (2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, considered
R v BCA[2011] QCA 278, considered
R v CBO[2016] QCA 24, considered
R v HAA[2006] QCA 55, considered
R v HBT (2018) 274 A Crim R 569; [2018] QCA 227, considered
R v S[1993] QCA 367, considered
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered
R v TS [2009] 2 Qd R 276; [2008] QCA 370, considered

COUNSEL:

J B Godbolt for the applicant
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. BOWSKILL CJ:  I agree with Wilson J.

2. FLANAGAN JA:  I agree with Wilson J.

3. WILSON J:  After a three day trial in the District Court at Townsville, the applicant was convicted by a jury of:

   (a)one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (“the maintaining offence”);

   (b)eight counts of rape; and

   (c)one count of indecent treatment of a child, under the age of twelve, who is a living decedent.

4. Fourteen years imprisonment was imposed in relation to the maintaining offence and lesser…