[2002] QCA 414
COURT OF APPEAL
MCPHERSON JA
CULLINANE J
HOLMES J
CA No 265 of 2002
| THE QUEEN | |
| v. | |
| ROSS GREGORY CRAIG | (Respondent) |
and
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (Appellant)
BRISBANE
..DATE 07/10/2002
JUDGMENT
MR M J COPLEY (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the appellant
MR A J RAFTER (instructed by Mellick Smith & Associates) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: I ask Justice Holmes to give the first set of reasons.
HOLMES J: The Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent on two counts of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with by a child, one count of indecently dealing with a child, and one count of exposing a child to an indecent act. In each case the aggravating circumstances were that the child was under 12 and was under his care.
The respondent pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment to all four counts in the District Court on the 8th of August 2002 and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each count suspended after serving four months, with an operational period of three years.
The respondent was 43 years of age at the time of the offences, a married man with three children. He has no prior criminal history. He was principal of a small school in northern Queensland. The offences the subject of this appeal were all committed against a grade 7 student at the school who was aged 11 years at the time.
It was the respondent who disclosed the offences to the police in December 2001. That seems to have come about after he became aware firstly, in June 2001 that the Criminal Justice Commission was investigating reports of his swimming naked in a creek near the school while children were about, and secondly, at about the same time, that the complainant had made reference in a committal proceedings against another person to his having got her to massage his feet down at that creek.
At any rate, in October 2001 the respondent telephoned the Cairns police and made an appointment to speak to them at the end of the school year in December. In the meantime, on the 9th of December 2001, he wrote a letter of apology to the complainant making clear his betrayal of trust, his complete responsibility for what had happened, and his remorse. On the 17th of December 2001 he gave a full account of events to the Cairns police. The counts on the indictment were framed directly from his confession.
The offence the subject of the first count of indecent treatment occurred between the 1st of July 1999 and the 1st of September 1999. On an occasion when the complainant child had attended his house to use his computer the respondent lay naked on a couch in his lounge room and had her massage his feet. The offences, the subject of counts 2, 3, and 4, were a series of events occurring on one occasion at the creek adjacent to the school in November…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Craig; Exparte A-G (Qld) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] QCA 414
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was outside the range of a proper sentencing discretion. The Court of Appeal considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, including Craig's remorse, his cooperation with the police, and the serious nature of the offences due to his position of trust as a school principal.
The Court of Appeal found that the head sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment was appropriate and that the period of four months in actual custody adequately addressed the need for deterrence. The court also recognised the extraordinary circumstances of the case, particularly Craig's voluntary confessions and his otherwise impeccable background. The Court concluded that the sentence was an appropriate exercise of the District Court's discretion and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was unanimously dismissed by the judges, affirming the original sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.