R v CCK

Case [2019] QCA 237 1 November 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CCK [2019] QCA 237

PARTIES:

R
v
CCK
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 135 of 2019
DC No 2881 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 April 2019 (Loury QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Mullins AJA and Henry J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, nine counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, three counts of rape, one count maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence), three counts indecent treatment of a child under 12, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence), three counts of rape (domestic violence offence), and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence) – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence) and a concurrent term of seven years’ imprisonment for the count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the head sentences were intended to reflect all the offending – where the applicant is the biological father of the complainants – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v B[2003] QCA 68, considered
R v EK[2013] QCA 278, considered
R v GQ[2005] QCA 53, considered
R v HAA[2006] QCA 55, considered
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v S[1998] QCA 318, considered
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered
R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, considered

COUNSEL:

C C Minnery for the applicant
S J Hedge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fuller & White Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins AJA and the order proposed by her Honour.
MULLINS AJA: On 22 March 2019, the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), nine counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 (counts 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10, 11 and 13), three counts of rape (counts 5, 9 and 12), one count maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence) (count 14), three counts indecent treatment of a child under 12, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence) (counts 15, 16 and 18), three counts of rape (domestic violence offence) (counts 17, 19 and 20), and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence)…

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 CCK

Details

AGLC: R v CCK [2019] QCA 237
Case: [2019] QCA 237
Decision Date: 1 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v CCK involved the appellant, CCK, who was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against children, including maintaining sexual relationships with children, indecent treatment, and rape. These offences were committed against his own children and were classified as domestic violence offences. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 17 years' imprisonment, with the head sentences being 10 years for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence) and a concurrent seven years for another count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Given the severity and nature of the offences, which involved the appellant's own biological children, the court had to weigh the gravity of the crimes against the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh, while the prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate given the heinous nature of the crimes. The court had to consider whether the sentence fell outside the range of sentences that could be regarded as appropriate for such serious offences.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the sentence did not fall outside the range of sentences that could be regarded as appropriate. The court emphasised the gravity of the crimes committed by the appellant, noting the long-term psychological and physical harm inflicted on the victims. The court also highlighted the need to deter such serious offences against children. After carefully considering the nature of the offences and the principles of sentencing, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and thus dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The court's final order was to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, affirming the original sentencing decision. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the severity of offences against children when determining appropriate sentences and reaffirms the court's role in ensuring that sentences are both proportionate and reflective of the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v CCK [2019] QCA 237

Most Recent Citation

R v WBL [2020] QCA 88

Cases Citing This Decision

R v CDF [2024] QCA 207
Citation 1 (Para 8)

…for that offending. [8]Applicant’s Written Outline of Submissions at [50]-[56], citing: R v BCA [2011] QCA 278; R v LBC [2023] QCA 178; R v CCK [2019] QCA 237; R v WBL [2020] QCA 88; R v SBJ [2009] QCA 100. [9]Respondent’s Written Outline of submissions at [18]-[33], citing: R v BDU [2022] QCA 174; R v BDQ [2022]…
R v NAF [2023] QCA 197
Citation 2 (Para 38)

…ities, including R v DBF (No 3) [2013] QCA 382; R v HBT [2018] QCA 227; R v Crothers (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 268; R v CBO [2016] QCA 24; and R v CCK [2019] QCA 237, and the victim impact statements, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence for the maintaining count that reflected the global criminality of the app…
R v SDR [2022] QCA 93
Citation 3 (Para 6)

…ight years imprisonment had been imposed without any gross physical injury, and the present matter was a “case of regular rape for 13 months”. [6][2019] QCA 237.…
R v RBC [2020] QCA 99
Citation 4 (Para 7)

…is another example where offending of a similar order to that here has attracted sentences at or even higher than that imposed on the appellant. [31][2019] QCA 237 at [26]-[28]. [32][2018] QCA 284.…
R v WBL [2020] QCA 88
Citation 5 (Para 28)

…ears’ imprisonment, would not have been excessive, if there was some allowance for the mitigating factors by an earlier parole eligibility date. [8][2019] QCA 237 at [22] to [29].…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v WBG [2018] QCA 284
Citation 1 (Para 12)

…tionship for a child under 16 years. The prosecution relied on the comparable authorities of R v HAA [2006] QCA 55, R v EK [2013] QCA 278 and R v WBG [2018] QCA 284. The prosecutor’s submission was that the applicant should be sentenced on count 14 to no less than 10 years’ imprisonment.…
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39
Citation 2

…EK [2013] QCA 278, considered R v GQ [2005] QCA 53, considered R v HAA [2006] QCA 55, considered R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v S [1998] QCA 318, considered R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered R v WBG [2018] QCA 284, considered COUNSEL: C C Minnery for the applicant…
R v EK [2013] QCA 278
Citation 3 (Para 12)

…f maintaining a sexual relationship for a child under 16 years. The prosecution relied on the comparable authorities of R v HAA [2006] QCA 55, R v EK [2013] QCA 278 and R v WBG [2018] QCA 284. The prosecutor’s submission was that the applicant should be sentenced on count 14 to no less than 10 years’ imprisonment…
R v HAA [2006] QCA 55
Citation 4 (Para 12)

…cing for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship for a child under 16 years. The prosecution relied on the comparable authorities of R v HAA [2006] QCA 55, R v EK [2013] QCA 278 and R v WBG [2018] QCA 284. The prosecutor’s submission was that the applicant should be sentenced on count 14 to no less than…
R v SAR [2005] QCA 426
Citation 5 (Para 13)

…The applicant’s counsel relied on R v S [1998] QCA 318, R v TWB [2001] QCA 111, R v B [2003] QCA 68 and R v SAR [2005] QCA 426 as comparable authorities. The applicant’s counsel had submitted for an effective sentence of imprisonment between seven and eight years with parole eligibility at about one-third of the…
R v GQ [2005] QCA 53
Citation 6 (Para 21)

…lty. The conduct in EK was arguably less serious than the applicant’s offending. The applicant’s case is more serious than WBG and R v GQ [2005] QCA 53 in which cases 10 years’ imprisonment was imposed after guilty pleas. The cases relied on by the applicant, both at sentence and on this application, are not com…
R v SAG [2004] QCA 286
Citation 7 (Para 12)

…The prosecutor referred to R v SAG [2004] QCA 286 for the relevant factors to be considered in sentencing for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship for a child under 16 years. The prosecution relied on the comparable authorities of R v HAA [2006] QCA 55, R v EK [2013] QCA 278 and R v WBG [2018] QCA 284…
R v B [2003] QCA 68
Citation 8 (Para 13)

…The applicant’s counsel relied on R v S [1998] QCA 318, R v TWB [2001] QCA 111, R v B [2003] QCA 68 and R v SAR [2005] QCA 426 as comparable authorities. The applicant’s counsel had submitted for an effective sentence of imprisonment between seven and eight years with parole eligibility at about one-third of the…
R v TWB [2001] QCA 111
Citation 9 (Para 13)

…The applicant’s counsel relied on R v S [1998] QCA 318, R v TWB [2001] QCA 111, R v B [2003] QCA 68 and R v SAR [2005] QCA 426 as comparable authorities. The applicant’s counsel had submitted for an effective sentence of imprisonment between seven and eight years with parole eligibility at about one-third of the…
R v. S [1998] QCA 318
Citation 10 (Para 13)

…The applicant’s counsel relied on R v S [1998] QCA 318, R v TWB [2001] QCA 111, R v B [2003] QCA 68 and R v SAR [2005] QCA 426 as comparable authorities. The applicant’s counsel had submitted for an effective sentence of imprisonment between seven and eight years with parole eligibility at about one-third of the…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.

CITATION:	R v CCK [2019] QCA 237
PARTIES:	R v CCK (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 135 of 2019 DC No 2881 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 April 2019 (Loury QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	1 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 October 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Mullins AJA and Henry J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, nine counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, three counts of rape, one count maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence), three counts indecent treatment of a child under 12, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence), three counts of rape (domestic violence offence), and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, lineal descendant (domestic violence offence) – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (domestic violence offence) and a concurrent term of seven years’ imprisonment for the count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the head sentences were intended to reflect all the offending – where the applicant is the biological father of the complainants – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v B[2003] QCA 68, considered R v EK[2013] QCA 278, considered R v GQ[2005] QCA 53, considered R v HAA[2006] QCA 55, considered R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v S[1998] QCA 318, considered R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, considered
COUNSEL:	C C Minnery for the applicant S J Hedge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fuller & White Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent