R v Crabb - [2014] QCA 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crabb [2014] QCA 229

PARTIES:

R
v
CRABB, Corrina Ann
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 60 of 2014
DC No 101 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 August 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Ann Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.   Allow the appeal.

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance.

4.   Instead, on counts 1, 38, 60, 69 and 72 the applicant is sentenced to nine years imprisonment. On all remaining counts the applicant is sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

5.   The date the applicant is eligible for parole is 24 November 2014.

6.    Under s 159A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) it is declared that 785 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 24 November 2011 and 17 January 2014 be declared time already served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant received a head sentence of 11 years for procuring young persons for prostitution – where all victims were first engaged in prostitution when they were between 15 and 16 years of age – where the learned sentencing judge incorrectly sentenced the applicant to 11 years for count 2, prostitution simpliciter, when the maximum sentence was seven years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the particular circumstances of the case

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v KAK[2013] QCA 310, considered
R v P (1998) 104 A Crim R 220; [1998] QCA 402, considered
R v TR & FV;ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 186 A Crim R 420; [2008] QCA 221, considered

COUNSEL:

S Holt SC for the applicant/appellant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons of Ann Lyons J for granting this application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing the appeal.

The respondent understandably emphasised that the applicant's offending involved procuring over prolonged periods five vulnerable teenagers for prostitution involving unprotected sexual intercourse. It was fortunate that none contracted a sexually transmitted disease and unsurprising that one became pregnant. The applicant also provided the young women with alcohol and drugs. Their victim impact statements set out the detrimental effect of the offending. Depending on the circumstances of the case, such offending could attract a considerably higher sentence than the nine year sentence with parole eligibility after three years substituted by this Court. That is especially so where force is used, where young people have been pressured into prostitution by parents or others in a position…

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 Crabb

Details

AGLC: R v Crabb [2014] QCA 229
Case: [2014] QCA 229
Decision Date: 16 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crabb involved an applicant appealing against the sentence imposed for procuring young persons for prostitution. The applicant was convicted on multiple counts, including procuring young persons for prostitution and engaging in prostitution with minors. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence of 11 years, which included a mistakenly applied maximum sentence of seven years for count 2, was appropriate. The court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate given the circumstances of the case, including the age of the victims and the nature of the offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court noted that the sentencing judge had incorrectly applied the maximum penalty for count 2, which was seven years, instead of the correct penalty. The court was required to assess the proportionality of the overall sentence and whether it should be reduced, taking into account the nature and impact of the crimes committed against minors. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's time spent in pre-sentence custody should be credited towards the new sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to the incorrect application of the maximum penalty for count 2. The court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. It set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of nine years on certain counts and seven years on the remaining counts. The court also determined that the applicant would be eligible for parole on 24 November 2014 and that 785 days spent in pre-sentence custody should be credited towards the new sentence. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the proportionality and correctness of the sentence in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance.

4. Instead, on counts 1, 38, 60, 69 and 72 the applicant is sentenced to nine years imprisonment. On all remaining counts the applicant is sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

5. The date the applicant is eligible for parole is 24 November 2014.

6. Under s 159A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) it is declared that 785 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 24 November 2011 and 17 January 2014 be declared time already served under the sentence.

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 Crabb [2014] QCA 229
PARTIES:	R v CRABB, Corrina Ann (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 60 of 2014 DC No 101 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	16 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 August 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Ann Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence. 2. Allow the appeal. 3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance. 4. Instead, on counts 1, 38, 60, 69 and 72 the applicant is sentenced to nine years imprisonment. On all remaining counts the applicant is sentenced to seven years imprisonment. 5. The date the applicant is eligible for parole is 24 November 2014. 6. *Under s 159A Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992 (Qld) it is declared that 785 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 24 November 2011 and 17 January 2014 be declared time already served under the sentence.**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant received a head sentence of 11 years for procuring young persons for prostitution – where all victims were first engaged in prostitution when they were between 15 and 16 years of age – where the learned sentencing judge incorrectly sentenced the applicant to 11 years for count 2, prostitution simpliciter, when the maximum sentence was seven years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the particular circumstances of the case Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) R v KAK[2013] QCA 310, considered R v P (1998) 104 A Crim R 220; [1998] QCA 402, considered R v TR & FV;ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 186 A Crim R 420; [2008] QCA 221, considered
COUNSEL:	S Holt SC for the applicant/appellant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent