SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v GQ [2005] QCA 53
PARTIES:
R
v
GQ
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 430 of 2004
DC No 1073 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
4 March 2005DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 March 2005
JUDGES:
McPherson JA, White and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – maintaining relationship with child under 16 for 6 years – protracted unprotected intercourse –provision of alcohol to victim – where voluntary confession in circumstances where no official complaint made – where reason to believe complaint might have been made or might be made in the future – whether confession sufficient mitigating feature
ABv R (1999) 198 CLR 111, cited
R v C; ex parte A-G [2003] QCA 134; CA No 400 of 2002, 24 March 2003, citedR v S [2001] QCA 54; CA No 238 of 2000, 21 February 2001, distinguished
COUNSEL:
D Shepherd for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WHITE J: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 19th of October 2004 to maintaining a sexual relationship with circumstances of aggravation, those aggravating features being rape and unlawful carnal knowledge in the period of the relationship, between the 1st of January 1994 and the 6th of April 2000. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 12, two counts of rape, the second of which occurred when the girl was then 16, and one count of indecent assault when she was also 16.
He was sentenced on the 3rd of December 2004 in the District Court. A head sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was imposed in respect of the maintaining charge. He was also sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the indecent dealing charges, eight years' imprisonment for the rapes and three years' imprisonment for the indecent assault, all of those terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently.
As a consequence of the 10 year sentence imposed for the maintaining offence an automatic serious violent offence declaration was made.
The applicant was born on the 26th of January 1970. He was therefore 34 at the time of sentence and aged between 23 and 30 years over the period of the offending conduct. The child was aged between 10 and 16 years when the offences occurred. She was the applicant's wife's sister's daughter, that is his wife's niece.
The complaint is that the head sentence of…
Continue reading R v GQ
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v GQ [2005] QCA 53
- Case
- [2005] QCA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the offence, the duration of the relationship, and the impact on the victim, along with the circumstances surrounding the confession. It was noted that the relationship was exploitative and the victim was significantly younger than the respondent. The court held that the confession, despite being voluntary, did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crimes committed. The court found that the sentence imposed reflected the serious nature of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
In light of the above, the court's decision was that GQ's application for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence was dismissed. The sentence imposed was considered appropriate and reflected the serious nature of the offences committed against the child. The court did not find the voluntary confession to be a sufficient mitigating factor given the circumstances of the case. Therefore, GQ's appeal against his sentence was not successful.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
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.