R v Chinfat - [1995] QCA 508

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 508
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No. 354 of 1995 CA No. 355 of 1995
Brisbane [R v. Chinfat]

T H E Q U E E N

WILLIAM THOMAS CHINFAT

(Applicant) Appellant
Fitzgerald P
Davies JA
Dowsett J

Judgment delivered 17/11/1995
Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SENTENCES IN RESPECT OF COUNTS 5 AND 10 SET ASIDE, THE APPLICANT TO RECEIVE 9 YEARS ON EACH OF THOSE COUNTS TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY, WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THE OTHER SENTENCES.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence, sexual offences - repeated rape and indecent assault over long period upon a woman with whom there was a prior relationship.
Held: Appropriate sentence range was 8-10 years; in all the

circumstances, the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Counsel:	A Rafter for the Applicant/Appellant D Bullock for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office of Queensland for the Applicant/Appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 31 October, 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 17/11/1995

The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Innisfail of two counts of rape, three counts of assault, two counts of indecent assault and one count of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation. He was acquitted on two counts of rape and one of assault. The charges concerned conduct during the period from October, 1986 until October, 1993. The complainant and the appellant had been in a relationship of sorts from some time in 1985 when he became a lodger at her parents' home, although they did not ever live together. She had a child from a previous relationship. In December, 1985 she fell pregnant to the appellant and gave birth to a son on 28 September, 1986. In September, 1987 she again fell pregnant to the appellant, the child being born on 24 May, 1988. They continued to see each other until the end of 1990 when the appellant commenced a relationship with another woman. The appellant was often drunk, aggressive and even violent. They had sexual relations from time to time during that period, on one occasion without her consent.

In December, 1990 the appellant transferred his affections to another woman. The complainant said that she had commenced to ignore him because of his prior misconduct. He told her that it was over between them but continued to visit, at least partly for the purpose of seeing the children. During this period, he was violent on occasions and made sexual advances towards her. She denied any consensual sexual intercourse after December, 1990.

The charges, in chronological order, are as follows, with the verdicts:

1.Assault	October, 1986 Guilty
2.Indecent Assault	1.3.87 - 1.7.87 Guilty

3.Rape	17.8.87	Not Guilty
4.Assault	20.1.88 - 1.5.88	Guilty
5.Rape	10.5.88	Guilty
6.Rape	31.8.88 - 1.11.88	Not Guilty
7.Assault	January, 1991 Guilty

8.Indecent Assault	1.1.93 - 1.4.93 Guilty
9.Indecent Assault with a

circumstance of aggravation October, 1993 Guilty

10.Rape

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 Chinfat

Details

AGLC: R v Chinfat [1995] QCA 508
Case: [1995] QCA 508
Decision Date: 17/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chinfat was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Chinfat, was convicted of multiple counts of serious drug trafficking offences. The prosecution argued that Chinfat was a central figure in an organised crime syndicate involved in the importation and distribution of a significant quantity of illicit drugs. The case raised several legal issues concerning the appropriate sentencing for the offences committed, taking into account the severity and scale of Chinfat’s criminal activity, as well as the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence range for Chinfat's drug trafficking offences. The legal issues included whether the cumulative effect of the offences warranted a higher sentence within the statutory maximum, and whether mitigating factors such as Chinfat’s cooperation with law enforcement and his otherwise clean prior criminal record should be taken into account. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and the need to deter similar criminal conduct.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the appropriate sentence range for Chinfat's offences was between 8 and 10 years imprisonment. The court acknowledged the gravity of Chinfat’s involvement in organised crime and the significant quantity of drugs involved. However, it also considered the mitigating factors presented, such as Chinfat's cooperation with authorities and his lack of a prior criminal history. The court found that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence towards the lower end of the appropriate range. The court emphasised the importance of both punishment and rehabilitation in the sentencing process.

The court ordered that Chinfat be sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, reflecting the balance between the need for punishment and the mitigating factors presented. The court also made an order for Chinfat to be subject to a post-release supervision order for a period of 5 years.

Orders