R v Bouttell

[2018] QCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bouttell [2018] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
BOUTTELL, David George
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 112 of 2017
DC No 208 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Sentence: 18 May 2017 (Kefford DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2017

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of using electronic equipment to procure a child and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 – where the defendant was found guilty by a jury of a further count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and rape – where the defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with statutory parole eligibility after three years – where the defendant was 18 and 19 at the time of the offences and had no criminal history – where the offences occurred over a period of five weeks – where the defendant was friends with the complainant – where the complainant was five years younger than the defendant – where there was delay in the trial, not attributable to the defendant – where the defendant was found to lack remorse – whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, applied
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, applied
R v BBP[2009] QCA 114, cited
R v Breckenridge[1998] QCA 136, cited
R v FAK[2016] QCA 306, considered
R v HAN (2008) 184 A Crim R 153; [2008] QCA 106, considered
R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 153, considered
R v L; ex parte Attorney-General [1996] 2 Qd R 63; [1995] QCA 444, considered
R v Lee[2012] QCA 239, distinguished
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, considered
R v MAH[2005] QCA 13, distinguished
R v Miller[2012] QCA 168, considered
R v Mules[2007] QCA 47, considered
R v Myers[2009] QCA 14, distinguished
R v Pickup[2008] QCA 350, distinguished
R v Postchild[2013] QCA 227, distinguished
R v Stephens; Ex parte Attorney-General (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, distinguished

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant
G P Cash QC, with P J McCarthy, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. HOLMES CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons for judgment of Fraser JA.  I have, however, come to a different conclusion from his Honour and Gotterson…