R v C - [1998] QCA 207

[1998] QCA 207

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
DAVIES JA
THOMAS J

CA No 479 of 1997

THE QUEEN

C Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 27/05/98

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: On 15 December last the applicant pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge by anal intercourse of a child under the age of 12 years. In fact, at the time of the offence which was 15 May 1997, the child victim was only two. The applicant was then 25 years of age and is now 26. He was sentenced on the same day as his plea to life imprisonment back dated to the date of the offence, 15 May 1997. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The offence was described, accurately, by the learned sentencing Judge as one of almost unimaginable brutality. The child was asleep in bed at her grandmother's house. The applicant, who was related to the complainant and looked upon her as his niece, was observed to enter the house although he did not live there. He entered the room in which the child was sleeping, locked the door on the inside and then savagely anally raped her. Her grandmother, hearing the child's cries, entered the house and attempted to enter the room but found it locked. She called to her brother to obtain the spare key. When she managed to open it and enter the room, she observed the applicant, whom she described as a nephew, and called upon him to leave the house. He climbed out the window and ran off into the bush.

She then saw the complainant lying on the mattress naked and crying. There was a great deal of blood about and the child's nappy, which she had been wearing, was some distance away. The child was airlifted to Cairns Base Hospital where she was examined under anaesthetic. She was found to have substantial injuries. There was substantial injury to her peritoneum and posterior vaginal wall extending to the rectum. There was evidence of a whitish discharge around the vulva, perineal and anal region and there was a torn rupture of the external sphincter. There was bruising around the anus and superficial tears inside the wall of the lower part of the rectum. Her vaginal hymen was torn. This was plainly caused by forceful entry, possible with a male erect penis through the anal region.

There was some doubt about the complainant's faecal continence later in life. There will be scarring in the vagina and rectum which may limit her sexual functions. She has permanently lost her hymen and there will be a permanent scar on her abdomen. This may later cause chronic pelvic and abdominal pain later in life. However, it was hoped that, subject to her scarring, she would make a complete physical recovery. It is of course impossible to assess what psychological harm she may have suffered.

When first approached by police, despite his aunt's identification, he denied involvement and said that he had been framed. A de facto wife later…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v C

Details

AGLC: R v C [1998] QCA 207
Case: [1998] QCA 207
Decision Date: 27/05/98

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. C, the applicant pleaded guilty to the brutal anal rape of a two-year-old child. The offence occurred on 15 May 1997, when the child was asleep in her grandmother's house. The applicant, who was related to the child and aged 25 at the time, entered the house, locked the child's bedroom door from the inside, and committed the heinous act. The child's grandmother, hearing her cries, attempted to enter the room but found it locked. Upon opening the door, she found the applicant and ordered him to leave. The applicant fled through a window. The child was found naked, crying, and covered in blood. Medical examinations revealed severe injuries, including substantial damage to her peritoneum, posterior vaginal wall, rectum, and external sphincter, as well as bruising and superficial tears. The applicant, who had a history of violent conduct, denied involvement initially but later admitted guilt after forensic evidence linked him to the crime. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment, backdated to the date of the offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal against this sentence.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The applicant argued that a life sentence for an Aboriginal person, who particularly values their freedom, was excessively harsh and would not provide any hope for the future. The Court of Appeal needed to consider the severity of the offence, the applicant's history of violent conduct, and the potential risk he posed to the community, particularly when intoxicated. The Court also had to weigh the applicant's lack of remorse and the psychiatrist's pessimistic prognosis about his future behavior.

The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson J, Davies JA, and Thomas J, considered the brutality of the offence and the applicant's history of violent conduct. The Court noted that the applicant showed no remorse and did not appear concerned about the physical and emotional damage caused to the child. The Court concluded that the trial judge was justified in imposing a life sentence, considering the almost unimaginable brutality of the offence and the applicant's previous violent behaviour. The Court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate, and thus refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal's decision emphasised the severity of the offence and the need to protect the community from the applicant's potential future violence, particularly when intoxicated. The Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal confirmed the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence for this egregious crime.

Orders