R v C; ex parte - [2003] QCA 510

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v C; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2003] QCA 510

PARTIES:

R v C (respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 328 of 2003
DC No 1730 of 2002
DC No 2009 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 13 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 13 November 2003
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to 34 counts of indecent dealing involving 20 children - where respondent sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment to be suspended after 14 months for operational period of four years - where offences occurred between January 1973 and December 1981 - where respondent a priest - where respondent rehabilitated himself - where arrest and conviction caused respondent public disgrace - where respondent remorseful - where respondent rehabilitated himself - whether sentence manifestly inadequate
R v Wright [1996] QCA 104; CA No 10 of 1996, 19 April
1996, distinguished

COUNSEL: C W Heaton for appellant
M J Byrne QC for respondent
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant
Gilshenan & Luton for respondent

DAVIES JA: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against
sentences of three and a half years imprisonment, suspended

after 14 months for an operational period of four years	10
imposed in the District Court on 12 September 2003 for 34 counts of indecent dealing. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The respondent was convicted on his own plea on 9 September 2003.
20
The offences occurred between January 1973 and December 1981 in a country town in Queensland when the respondent was serving as a parish priest. He was also associated with the school which was attached to his church.
30
As appears from what I have just said, the offences occurred over a period of about eight years. One of the victims was aged between four and six at the time of a single offence against her and one was aged between six and seven. The other victims were aged between eight and 12 years of age.	40
As the learned sentencing judge noted, the respondent was
generally regarded highly in the community which he served
during this period, including by the parents of the children
whom he dealt with so shamefully. Although I would not wish	50

to denigrate the good work which the respondent no doubt performed in that community, it is ironic that it was at least partly because of the high regard in which he was held by the parents of those children that…

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; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v C; ex parte [2003] QCA 510
Case: [2003] QCA 510
Decision Date: 13/11/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, a former priest, pleaded guilty to 34 counts of indecent dealing with 20 children, with the offences occurring between January 1973 and December 1981. He was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 14 months, with a four-year operational period. The Attorney-General appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The respondent, who had rehabilitated himself, caused public disgrace upon his arrest and conviction but had shown remorse. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the respondent's rehabilitation and remorse, and the impact of his arrest and conviction on his public standing. The court also weighed the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. It acknowledged the severity of the offences and the respondent's rehabilitation efforts but found that the sentence reflected the totality of the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the need to consider the respondent's remorse and efforts to make amends. The court also noted the impact of the sentence on the victims and the community. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The original sentence of three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 14 months, with a four-year operational period, was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v C; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2003] QCA 510
PARTIES:	R v C (respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 328 of 2003 DC No 1730 of 2002 DC No 2009 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	13 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 November 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to 34 counts of indecent dealing involving 20 children - where respondent sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment to be suspended after 14 months for operational period of four years - where offences occurred between January 1973 and December 1981 - where respondent a priest - where respondent rehabilitated himself - where arrest and conviction caused respondent public disgrace - where respondent remorseful - where respondent rehabilitated himself - whether sentence manifestly inadequate
R v Wright [1996] QCA 104; CA No 10 of 1996, 19 April

COUNSEL:	C W Heaton for appellant M J Byrne QC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant Gilshenan & Luton for respondent