R v Bedeau

[2009] QCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bedeau [2009] QCA 43

PARTIES:

R
v
BEDEAU, Vernon Joseph Lee
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 228 of 2008
DC No 2552 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2009

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA, Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal allowed

2.   Appeal allowed

3.   Each sentence imposed at first instance be suspended after six months with an operational period of three years

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of two counts of using the internet to procure a child to engage in a sexual act and one count of using the internet with intent to expose a child to an indecent act – where the applicant was sentenced on each count to an 18 month term of imprisonment – where the applicant did not in fact communicate with a 14 year old child but instead a police officer posing as a child – whether the primary judge erred in not taking into account communication with a child did not actually occur and other relevant circumstances – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Burdon; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2005) 153 A Crim R 104; [2005] QCA 147, considered
R v Campbell[2004] QCA 342, considered
R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2008) 181 A Crim R 200; [2008] QCA 22, cited
R v D'Arrigo; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2004) 42 MVR 54; [2004] QCA 399, cited
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, considered
R v Hays (2006) 160 A Crim R 45; [2006] QCA 20, considered
R v Kennings [2004] QCA 162, considered
R v Le [1996] 2 Qd R 516; [1995] QCA 479, cited

COUNSEL:

S Fajardo for the applicant/appellant (pro bono)
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and with the orders his Honour proposes.

1. MUIR JA:  The applicant was convicted after a trial in the District Court of two counts of using the internet to procure a child to engage in a sexual act and one count of using the internet with intent to expose a child to an indecent act and sentenced on each count to an 18 month term of imprisonment.  All terms were ordered to be served concurrently and no suspension was ordered.  The applicant applies for leave to appeal against his sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly excessive. 

1. The applicant's counsel accepts that the authorities support the 18 month head sentences imposed.  They…