R v CCF
Case
•
[2018] QCA 285
•23 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v CCF [2018] QCA 285
[2018] QCA 285
23 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v CCF, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed for the offence of indecently dealing with a child under 16 years. The applicant was convicted of two offences, the first occurring when he was 16 years old and the second when he was 17 or 18. The complainant was the same person in both instances and was about five years younger than the applicant. The applicant was sentenced approximately 20 years after the offences were committed. The sentencing judge decided not to record a conviction for the first offence but did record a conviction for the second offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal only in relation to the sentence imposed for the second offence.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge should have ordered that a conviction be recorded in relation to the second offence. The court noted that the sentencing judge was required to consider specific matters under section 12(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) in deciding whether to record a conviction, including the impact on the offender’s economic or social wellbeing or chances of finding employment. The court found that the sentencing judge failed to consider the effect of a recorded conviction on the applicant's employability, particularly in his profession as a nursing assistant where a blue card is necessary. Given that the applicant could face significant disadvantage in obtaining a blue card with a recorded conviction, the court concluded that the sentencing judge should have taken this into account when deciding whether to record a conviction.
In light of the above, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court varied the order made on count 2 of the indictment by ordering that a conviction not be recorded. This decision ensures that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the potential impact on the applicant's employment prospects is rectified, aligning with the statutory requirements under section 12(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge should have ordered that a conviction be recorded in relation to the second offence. The court noted that the sentencing judge was required to consider specific matters under section 12(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) in deciding whether to record a conviction, including the impact on the offender’s economic or social wellbeing or chances of finding employment. The court found that the sentencing judge failed to consider the effect of a recorded conviction on the applicant's employability, particularly in his profession as a nursing assistant where a blue card is necessary. Given that the applicant could face significant disadvantage in obtaining a blue card with a recorded conviction, the court concluded that the sentencing judge should have taken this into account when deciding whether to record a conviction.
In light of the above, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court varied the order made on count 2 of the indictment by ordering that a conviction not be recorded. This decision ensures that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the potential impact on the applicant's employment prospects is rectified, aligning with the statutory requirements under section 12(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v CCF [2018] QCA 285
Most Recent Citation
R v Henshall [2025] QCA 20
Cases Citing This Decision
4
R v Henshall
[2025] QCA 20
R v RBN
[2024] QCA 185
R v Henshall
[2025] QCA 20
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
3