R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson - [2004] QCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson [2004] QCA 78

PARTIES:

R
v
DICKESON, Andrew Mark Hugh
(respondent/applicant)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 387 of 2003
CA No 398 of 2003
DC No 2982 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

17 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence dismissed

2. Respondent/applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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/applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with child under 16 years with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years and one count of possessing child abuse computer games – where sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and reporting requirements ordered upon release from custody – where respondent/applicant was 29 years old at sentence – where offences involved three young girls – where relationship with two girls had been maintained for nine months – where explicit sexual activity with children captured on video and still photographs and stored on computer – where photographs of other children in public places and child pornography stored on computer – whether sentence was manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 19A

R v Arnold; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 134 ACrimR 151, cited
R v D [2003] QCA 88; CA No 444 of 2002, 4 March 2003, cited
R v D [2003] QCA 148; CA No 207 of 2002 and CA No 232 of 2002, 4 April 2003, cited
R v D [2003] QCA 426; CA No 211 of 2003, 25 September 2003, cited
R v Dillon [2003] QCA 305; CA No 89 of 2003, 21 July 2003, cited
R v H [2004] QCA 37; CA No 349 of 2003, 19 February 2004, considered
R v H [2003] QCA 392; CA No 171 of 2003, 12 September 2003, cited
R v Herford [2001] QCA 177; CA No 334 of 2000, 11 May 2001, cited
R v Myers [2002] QCA 143; CA No 353 of 2001, 19 April 2002, cited
R v Sheridan [1993] CA No 316 of 1993, 7 October 1993, cited
R v Young; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 135 A CrimR 253, cited

COUNSEL:

L J Clare for the appellant
M D Byrne QC for the respondent/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent/applicant

THE…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QCA 78
Decision Date: 17 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson involved a respondent/applicant who had pleaded guilty to serious charges, including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, indecent treatment of a child under 12 years, and possession of child abuse computer games. The respondent/applicant, aged 29 at the time of sentencing, had engaged in explicit sexual activities with three young girls, which were captured on video and still photographs stored on a computer. The relationship with two of the girls had lasted for nine months, and the explicit activities were accompanied by the possession of photographs of other children in public places and child pornography. The respondent/applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with reporting requirements upon release. The Attorney-General, acting on behalf of the Crown, sought to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate. The respondent/applicant also applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was either manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive. This involved assessing the severity of the crimes, the culpability of the respondent/applicant, and the appropriate punishment considering the gravity of the offences. The court needed to balance the interests of justice and the principles of proportionality in sentencing. The decision hinged on whether the 10-year sentence was appropriate given the nature and extent of the crimes committed against the young victims.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes, acknowledging the significant harm caused to the victims. However, the court also considered the respondent/applicant's age and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community. Therefore, the Attorney-General's appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the respondent/applicant's application for leave to appeal was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence dismissed

2. Respondent/applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson [2004] QCA 78
PARTIES:	R v DICKESON, Andrew Mark Hugh (respondent/applicant) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 387 of 2003 CA No 398 of 2003 DC No 2982 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	17 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence dismissed 2. Respondent/applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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/applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with child under 16 years with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years and one count of possessing child abuse computer games – where sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and reporting requirements ordered upon release from custody – where respondent/applicant was 29 years old at sentence – where offences involved three young girls – where relationship with two girls had been maintained for nine months – where explicit sexual activity with children captured on video and still photographs and stored on computer – where photographs of other children in public places and child pornography stored on computer – whether sentence was manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 19A R v Arnold; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 134 ACrimR 151, cited R v D [2003] QCA 88; CA No 444 of 2002, 4 March 2003, cited R v D [2003] QCA 148; CA No 207 of 2002 and CA No 232 of 2002, 4 April 2003, cited R v D [2003] QCA 426; CA No 211 of 2003, 25 September 2003, cited R v Dillon [2003] QCA 305; CA No 89 of 2003, 21 July 2003, cited R v H [2004] QCA 37; CA No 349 of 2003, 19 February 2004, considered R v H [2003] QCA 392; CA No 171 of 2003, 12 September 2003, cited R v Herford [2001] QCA 177; CA No 334 of 2000, 11 May 2001, cited R v Myers [2002] QCA 143; CA No 353 of 2001, 19 April 2002, cited R v Sheridan [1993] CA No 316 of 1993, 7 October 1993, cited R v Young; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 135 A CrimR 253, cited
COUNSEL:	L J Clare for the appellant M D Byrne QC for the respondent/applicant
SOLICITORS:	Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent/applicant