R v C; ex parte

Case [2003] QCA 134


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v C; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 134

PARTIES:

R
v
C
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 400 of 2002
DC No 186 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


24 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Allow the appeal and set aside the order in respect of count 1 of imprisonment for nine years and the recommendation that post prison community based release be considered after four years
2. In lieu thereof, order that the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years with a declaration that the respondent has been convicted of a serious violent offence

3. Confirm the sentences imposed in the District Court on 1 November 2002 in respect of counts 2, 3 and 4

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where numerous acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse over a two and a half year period – where respondent was complainant’s father and sole carer – where respondent pleaded guilty very early

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), pt 9A

R v G [2000] QCA 70; CA No 218 of 1999, 15 March 2000, considered
R v Herford [2001] QCA 177; CA No 335 of 2001, 11 May 2001, considered
R v K CA No 13 of 1991, 28 March 1991, considered
R v L [1999] QCA 423; CA No 242 of 1999, 7 October 1999, considered
R v M [1999] QCA 344; CA No 219 of 1999, 20 August 1999, considered
R v Myers [2002] QCA 143; CA No 353 of 2002, 19 April 2002, considered
R v R [2000] QCA 279; CA No 126 of 2000, 14 July 2000, considered
R v TWB [2001] QCA 111; CA No 355 of 2000, 22 March 2001, considered
R v Young; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 474; CA No 244 of 2002, 5 November 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
A W Moynihan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation.  He committed this offence upon his daughter over a two and a half year period while she was aged 13 to 16 years.  He was then her sole carer, the mother having departed the domestic situation some time earlier.

The respondent was aged 30 to 33 years.  For…

Continue reading R v C; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v C; ex parte [2003] QCA 134
Case
[2003] QCA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v C; ex parte, the Attorney-General sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court on the respondent, who had been convicted of multiple acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse over a period of two and a half years. The respondent, the complainant’s father and sole carer, had pleaded guilty early in the proceedings. The appeal centred on the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the District Court and the need for it to be increased.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence of nine years imprisonment, with the recommendation that post-prison community-based release be considered after four years, was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the relationship between the offender and the victim, and the potential impact of the sentence on public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, particularly given the relationship between the offender and the victim and the prolonged nature of the abuse. The court determined that a more severe sentence was warranted to achieve the aims of denunciation and deterrence. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside. In its place, the court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years, with a declaration that the respondent had been convicted of a serious violent offence. The sentences imposed on counts 2, 3, and 4 were confirmed as appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal and set aside the order in respect of count 1 of imprisonment for nine years and the recommendation that post prison community based release be considered after four years

2. In lieu thereof, order that the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years with a declaration that the respondent has been convicted of a serious violent offence

3. Confirm the sentences imposed in the District Court on 1 November 2002 in respect of counts 2, 3 and 4

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.