R v Dillon - [2003] QCA 305

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Dillon [2003] QCA 305
PARTIES: R
v
DILLON, Ronald Alexander Thomas
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 89 of 2003
DC No 449 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 21 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 July 2003
JUDGES: Williams JA, Mackenzie and Helman JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS: 1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence
granted
2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentence below set aside

4.   In lieu thereof the following sentences are imposed;

a. 6 years imprisonment on counts 1-4
b. 2 years concurrent imprisonment on count 5
5.   Pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, it be ordered that upon release from custody the applicant report his name and address to the police in Brisbane within 48 hours of release and the applicant must report any change of address within 48 hours of the change, such order to remain in force for 20 years
6.    It is declared that the 21 days imprisonment served by the applicant between 10 September 2002 and 31 September 2002 be time served under this sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where appellant charged with 4 offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 and 1 count of indecent dealing – appellant sentenced on plea of guilty to 8 years imprisonment accompanied by a serious violent offender order – where appellant also required to report to police once a month for 20 years on release – where appellant had prior similar convictions – where appellant has along term paedophilic arousal pattern – where the Crown conceded the sentence was beyond the appropriate range – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether reporting requirement beyond power
COUNSEL: P Callaghan for the applicant
R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to four offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with children under 12. All offences were committed at the caravan park where the

applicant and the children lived.

Count 1 charged an offence between the 1st of September 2001 and the 4th of September 2002 in respect of a girl who was five to seven years of age at the time. Count 2 charged an offence between the 1st of April 1999 and the 1st of March 2000 in respect of a boy aged four to five years. Count 3 charged an offence between the 1st of January 1999 and the 1st of September 2000 in respect of a boy of seven to eight years. Count 4 charged an offence between the 1st of August 2001 and the 1st of August…

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 Dillon

Details

AGLC: R v Dillon [2003] QCA 305
Case: [2003] QCA 305
Decision Date: 21/06/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence by the appellant, Dillon, who was convicted of four counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 years and one count of indecent dealing. The appellant, who had a history of similar offences, was sentenced to eight years in prison with a serious violent offender order, as well as a requirement to report to police once a month for 20 years upon release. The Crown conceded that the sentence was beyond the appropriate range and that the reporting requirement was beyond the court's power.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the reporting requirement was beyond the court's power. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the appropriate range of sentences for similar offences and the powers of the court to impose reporting requirements.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the reporting requirement was beyond the court's power. The court considered the appellant's criminal history and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation but found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court also found that the reporting requirement was not a valid sentencing option and was beyond the court's power. The court allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentence to six years in prison with a serious violent offender order.

The court's final orders were to allow the appellant leave to appeal against sentence and to reduce the sentence to six years in prison with a serious violent offender order. The court did not address the reporting requirement as it was beyond the court's power. The appellant's conviction was upheld, and the sentence was reduced to reflect the appropriate range for similar offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against 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 Dillon [2003] QCA 305
PARTIES:	R v DILLON, Ronald Alexander Thomas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 89 of 2003 DC No 449 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	21 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 July 2003
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Mackenzie and Helman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence

a.	6 years imprisonment on counts 1-4
b.	2 years concurrent imprisonment on count 5

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where appellant charged with 4 offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 and 1 count of indecent dealing – appellant sentenced on plea of guilty to 8 years imprisonment accompanied by a serious violent offender order – where appellant also required to report to police once a month for 20 years on release – where appellant had prior similar convictions – where appellant has along term paedophilic arousal pattern – where the Crown conceded the sentence was beyond the appropriate range – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether reporting requirement beyond power
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan for the applicant R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent