R v Crothers (a pseudonym) - [2020] QCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crothers (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 268

PARTIES:

R
v
CROTHERS (a pseudonym)
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 144 of 2019
DC No 2371 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 3 May 2019 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Refuse application for leave to appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, one count of common assault and nine counts of rape – where all of these offences were domestic violence offences – where the child complainant was the applicant’s step-daughter – where the relevant period of offending commenced when the complainant was 10 years of age and spanned a period of six years – where the maintaining offence involved oral, vaginal and anal rapes almost every day (count 1) – where the complainant gave birth to the applicant’s child when she was 15 years of age – where the applicant assaulted the complainant while she was pregnant and told her to “kill it” (count 2) – where there were a series of rapes of the complainant when she was 16 (counts 3 to 11) – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the maintaining offence and to a concurrent term of six months’ imprisonment on the assault count – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on counts 3 and 11 and three years’ imprisonment on each of counts 4 to 10 – where these latter sentences were concurrent with each other but cumulative upon the sentence imposed for the maintaining offence – where the result was a total sentence of 15 years – where the applicant does not criticise any of the learned judge’s findings or her Honour’s sentencing approach – where the applicant submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the overall sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(6), s 13

R v BAY (2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, considered
R v BBY [2011] QCA 69, cited
R v H[2001] QCA 167, cited
R v P; Ex parte Attorney-General[2001] QCA 188, cited
R v PAN[2011] QCA 192, cited
R v Robinson[2007] QCA 99, cited
R v Ruhland[1999] QCA 430, cited
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, cited

COUNSEL:

C Minnery for the applicant (pro bono)
S Cupina for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant pleaded guilty…

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 Crothers (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Crothers (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 268
Case: [2020] QCA 268
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crothers involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed following his convictions for various serious sexual offences against his step-daughter. The offences included maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, common assault, and multiple counts of rape, all of which were characterised as domestic violence. The relationship began when the complainant was 10 years old and continued for six years, culminating in her giving birth to the applicant’s child at the age of 15. The applicant was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the maintaining offence and a concurrent term of six months for the assault. For the rape counts, he received a total of 11 years' imprisonment, which was to run concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the other sentences, resulting in an overall sentence of 15 years.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant did not challenge the trial judge's findings or approach to sentencing but argued that the overall sentence was excessively harsh. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victim, the applicant's culpability, and whether the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed.

The court held that while the offences were of an extremely serious nature, the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had taken into account the severity of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victim, and the cumulative impact of the offences. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the applicant's conduct and the need to protect the community and deter similar offences. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse application for leave to appeal.

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 Crothers (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 268
PARTIES:	R v CROTHERS (a pseudonym) (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 144 of 2019 DC No 2371 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 3 May 2019 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 June 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Refuse application for leave to appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, one count of common assault and nine counts of rape – where all of these offences were domestic violence offences – where the child complainant was the applicant’s step-daughter – where the relevant period of offending commenced when the complainant was 10 years of age and spanned a period of six years – where the maintaining offence involved oral, vaginal and anal rapes almost every day (count 1) – where the complainant gave birth to the applicant’s child when she was 15 years of age – where the applicant assaulted the complainant while she was pregnant and told her to “kill it” (count 2) – where there were a series of rapes of the complainant when she was 16 (counts 3 to 11) – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the maintaining offence and to a concurrent term of six months’ imprisonment on the assault count – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on counts 3 and 11 and three years’ imprisonment on each of counts 4 to 10 – where these latter sentences were concurrent with each other but cumulative upon the sentence imposed for the maintaining offence – where the result was a total sentence of 15 years – where the applicant does not criticise any of the learned judge’s findings or her Honour’s sentencing approach – where the applicant submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the overall sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(6), s 13 R v BAY (2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, considered R v BBY [2011] QCA 69, cited R v H[2001] QCA 167, cited R v P; Ex parte Attorney-General[2001] QCA 188, cited R v PAN[2011] QCA 192, cited R v Robinson[2007] QCA 99, cited R v Ruhland[1999] QCA 430, cited R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, cited
COUNSEL:	C Minnery for the applicant (pro bono) S Cupina for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent