R v Clifford; ex parte - [2006] QCA 492

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Clifford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 492

PARTIES:

R
v
CLIFFORD, Craig Allan
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 257 of 2006
DC No 335 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against sentence dismissed

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 respondent pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 16 - where at the time of the offence the respondent was 29 and the complainant was a 13 year old girl - where the respondent pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, showed genuine remorse and has good prospects of rehabilitation - the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of 12 months - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 215(2), s 669A(1)

AB v R [1999] HCA 46; (1999) 198 CLR 111, cited

R v AS [2004] QCA 220; CA No 160 of 2004, 2 July 2004, distinguished

R v C [2002] QCA 46; CA No 369 of 2001, 22 February 2002, cited

R v HZ [2005] QCA 468; CA No 155 of 2005, 14 December 2005, cited

R v PW [2005] QCA 177; CA No 102 of 2005, 30 May 2005, cited

R v T; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2002] QCA 132, CA No 30 of 2002, 12 April 2002, cited

R v Waerea; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2003] QCA 20; CA Nos 287 and 307 of 2002, 7 February 2003, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
D C Shepherd for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA, and I agree with all that is said therein. There was one further submission made by counsel for the appellant which I will deal with briefly.

The events in question occurred in Townsville. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the intercourse which occurred at the respondent's home should be considered in the light of the fact that the respondent drove the complainant to his home rather than taking her to the nearest police station. As Keane JA has noted, the respondent, accompanied by a friend, was driving at about 12.30 am to the nearest McDonald's to get some food. They…

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 Clifford; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Clifford; ex parte [2006] QCA 492
Case: [2006] QCA 492
Decision Date: 24 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clifford; ex parte involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent, Clifford, who had pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 16 years of age. At the time of the offence, Clifford was 29 years old and the victim was a 13-year-old girl. Clifford pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated genuine remorse, and had good prospects of rehabilitation. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence of nine months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of 12 months, was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases such as R v C, R v T; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland, and R v Waerea; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland. The court noted that the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, and be balanced against the offender's personal circumstances. While Clifford's early guilty plea, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation were mitigating factors, the court also had to consider the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, taking into account all relevant factors.

The court distinguished the present case from R v AS, where the appeal against sentence was allowed due to the sentence being manifestly inadequate. In this case, the court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not fall outside the range of sentences that could be reasonably imposed for the offence. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Clifford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 492
PARTIES:	R v CLIFFORD, Craig Allan (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 257 of 2006 DC No 335 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	24 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against sentence dismissed
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 respondent pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 16 - where at the time of the offence the respondent was 29 and the complainant was a 13 year old girl - where the respondent pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, showed genuine remorse and has good prospects of rehabilitation - the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of 12 months - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 215(2), s 669A(1) AB v R [1999] HCA 46; (1999) 198 CLR 111, cited R v AS [2004] QCA 220; CA No 160 of 2004, 2 July 2004, distinguished R v C [2002] QCA 46; CA No 369 of 2001, 22 February 2002, cited R v HZ [2005] QCA 468; CA No 155 of 2005, 14 December 2005, cited R v PW [2005] QCA 177; CA No 102 of 2005, 30 May 2005, cited R v T; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2002] QCA 132, CA No 30 of 2002, 12 April 2002, cited R v Waerea; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2003] QCA 20; CA Nos 287 and 307 of 2002, 7 February 2003, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant D C Shepherd for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent