R v Edwards - [2001] QCA 366

[2001] QCA 366

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
WILSON J

CA No 173 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ANN MAREE EDWARDS Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/09/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: On 22 June this year the applicant pleaded guilty to the following offences committed on 11 May this year: burglary; assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation; sexual assault with a circumstance of aggravation; deprivation of liberty; and torture.

For the offences of burglary and torture she was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and she was sentenced to lesser periods of imprisonment for the other offences. A recommendation was also made that she be eligible for parole after serving nine months of that four year term.

The applicant was 28 years of age at the time of commission of these offences, having been born on 2 April 1972. She has no other criminal history.

Merely from the description of those offences it can be seen that they were very serious. But they also involved an invasion of the complainant's home in company with others and conduct, the torture, which caused her extreme fear for her safety and integrity and considerable physical pain. This Court has on many occasions emphasised the need to deter such vigilante style conduct. The circumstance of the commission of these offences was as follows.

Three other offenders were involved, Meyer and Corrie who are males, and Lugg, a female.

Lugg apparently believed that the complainant had had sexual relations with her boyfriend and may also have informed on him to the police. The others, including the applicant, agreed to go with Lugg to the complainant's house where they arrived early in the morning on the day in question.

There was some discussion beforehand about topics which included in effect torture of the complainant. So although the applicant was by no means the principal offender involved in what followed, on the other hand she knew or had a pretty good idea about what was going to happen. Meyer was armed with a replica pistol which apparently fired plastic pellets. Lugg was armed with a knife. The complainant was only 20 years of age.

They entered her house and her bedroom while she was still in bed in the early hours of the morning. Lugg, in effect, accused her of engaging in a sexual relationship with Lugg's boyfriend. The complainant naturally became immediately fearful, thinking that she was about to be beaten up. A torch which had been shone in her face for some time was put out and she felt something hitting her in the right foot and then again in the lip, in each case stinging her badly. It was in each case plastic pellets fired from the gun. She thought she was hit by these six or seven times. Lugg then told her to get up and get dressed, which she did. She was punched several times in the bed, including by the applicant who punched her in the stomach. She was then…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2001] QCA 366
Case: [2001] QCA 366
Decision Date: 05/09/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, Ann Maree Edwards, the applicant, appealed against her sentence for various serious offences she had pleaded guilty to, including burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation, sexual assault with a circumstance of aggravation, deprivation of liberty, and torture. The primary judge sentenced Edwards to four years' imprisonment for the offences of burglary and torture, and lesser periods of imprisonment for the other offences, with a recommendation that she be eligible for parole after serving nine months of the four-year term. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive.

The key legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether the imposition of separate sentences for certain offences was justified. The Court also had to consider the mitigating factors presented by the applicant's background and her cooperation with the police.

The Court of Appeal found that the reduction of the applicant's head sentence for her lesser involvement in the matter, the circumstances relating to her involvement, and her cooperation, was appropriate. However, the Court also noted that the primary judge had erred in imposing separate sentences for assault occasioning bodily harm, sexual assault, and deprivation of liberty, as these matters were effectively subsumed in the torture offence. The Court concluded that the sentence as a whole was not manifestly excessive, except for the imposition of separate sentences for the aforementioned offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences imposed for assault occasioning bodily harm, sexual assault, and deprivation of liberty, while confirming the sentences imposed by the primary judge for the other offences. The orders were as indicated by Davies JA.

Orders