R v CAM

[2009] QCA 44

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CAM [2009] QCA 44

PARTIES:

R
v
CAM
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 201 of 2008
DC No 698 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2009

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment – where aggravated circumstances – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v BAT [2005] QCA 82, distinguished
R v H [2003] QCA 392, distinguished
R v HAN [2008] QCA 106, distinguished
R v KJB [2002] QCA 448, distinguished
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 361; [2004] QCA 286, cited
R v SAU[2006] QCA 192, distinguished

COUNSEL:

S Kissick for the applicant
P Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McMillan, Kelly and Thomas Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

1. de JERSEY CJ: The applicant pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years of age, over the period 15 August 2002 to 15 August 2006.  He was sentenced, on 1 July 2008, to eight years imprisonment.  He seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The applicant’s wife pleaded guilty to a similar charge, but covering a substantially lesser period, 30 April 2006 to 15 August 2006.  The complainant was her daughter, and the applicant’s stepdaughter.  The applicant’s wife was sentenced on the basis that she allowed the applicant to conduct a sexual relationship with her daughter from April to August 2006.  The applicant’s wife was sentenced to six months imprisonment followed by three years probation.  Allowing for the feature that the applicant was the active offender, and the substantially longer period over which his offence continued, the matter of parity in the treatment of co-offenders did not in any real sense arise.

1. It is regrettably necessary to cover the circumstances of the applicant’s offending in some detail.

1. The complainant was born in August 1990.  The applicant married the complainant’s mother at a time when the complainant was four years old.  He committed this offence over a four year period, over which she was aged from 12 years to 16 years.  Broadly speaking, over that period the applicant persistently sexually abused his stepdaughter, on many occasion masturbating in her presence, touching her breasts, licking her vagina, as well as engaging in the digital and penile penetration of her vagina.  The licking of the vagina and digital penetration characterized the whole of the relationship.  The penile penetration commenced when the complainant…