R v G - [2002] QCA 381

[2002] QCA 381

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
HELMAN J
JONES J

CA No 123 of 2002

THE QUEEN

G (Applicant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/09/2002

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The indictment is amended accordingly and that is the indictment which appears at page 1R of the record book. Counts 34 and 37 are amended to read "June" instead of July in each case.

...

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will invite Mr Justice Helman to deliver the first judgment.

HELMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed earlier this year in the District Court.

On 26 March 2002, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment in the District Court at Beenleigh on each of eighty-one counts of serious sexual misconduct with children.

There were three indictments before the Court. The first contained twelve counts of offences of indecent treatment of children, committed in October 1999. There were four complainants, all girls, one of whom was his own daughter. Two were aged eleven years, one twelve, and one thirteen.
On 25 February 2002, the applicant pleaded not guilty to each of those counts and on 1 March, after a trial, he was found guilty on each. All of the girls were under his care when the offences were committed. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for eighteen months on each of ten counts, and to imprisonment for three years on each of the remaining two counts.
On 8 March 2002, the applicant pleaded guilty to all counts on a second indictment, alleging offences against two sisters: thirty-seven against the older sister, and eight against the younger. The offences against the older sister were committed from when she was ten years old to when she was about twelve years old. The younger sister was twelve when she was molested. Twenty-nine of the counts concerning the older sister, and all of those concerning the younger, were of indecent treatment and the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each of those counts.
There were seven counts of carnal knowledge of the older sister and one of maintaining a sexual relationship with her. In every case but one of indecent dealing with the older sister the complainant was under the applicant's care.
For each offence of carnal knowledge, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years and for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, he was sentenced to imprisonment for sixteen years.

There was a third indictment, containing twenty-one counts of indecent treatment of children and three counts of sexual assaults. The complainants were three boys, aged eight to fifteen years when the offences were committed. In all but six cases the complainants were under the applicant's care when the offences were committed. On 8 March 2002 the applicant pleaded guilty to each of those counts and was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on eleven of the counts and to imprisonment for six years on the remainder.

The applicant complains that 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.

Continue reading R v G

Details

AGLC: R v G [2002] QCA 381
Case: [2002] QCA 381
Decision Date: 25/09/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v G, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him by the District Court. The applicant had been found guilty of multiple counts of serious sexual misconduct with children, including indecent treatment, carnal knowledge, and maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The sentences imposed were imprisonment for eighteen months on ten counts, three years on two counts, five years on twenty-nine counts, twelve years on seven counts, and sixteen years for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The applicant argued that the sixteen-year sentence for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive and whether the Court should grant leave to appeal against those sentences. The Court had to consider the gravity of the offences, the number of offences, the devastating effect on the victims, and whether the sentences imposed were within the accepted range of a proper sentencing discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed were within the accepted range for such serious and numerous offences, particularly given their devastating effect on the young victims. The Court noted that comparable cases had resulted in sentences of up to seventeen years, and therefore, the sixteen-year sentence for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child was not manifestly excessive. The Court concluded that the intervention of the Court was not called for, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the District Court was refused. The Court did not amend the sentences but confirmed that they were within the accepted range for such serious and numerous offences.

Orders