R v Hav

In the matter of R v Hav, the appellant was convicted, following a trial, of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16, six counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and one count of rape. The appellant was acquitted on one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and four counts of rape. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent, and that the sentence was excessive. The appeal against conviction focused on the jury's verdict regarding count 9, the rape charge, and the circumstance of aggravation of rape in relation to count 1, which included rape. The appellant submitted that the verdict was insupportable as there was no evidence that the conduct complained of was non-consensual and that the verdict was inconsistent with the acquittals on the other counts of rape.

The legal issues before the court were whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory in all the circumstances, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the evidence presented at trial and the appellant's arguments regarding the verdict and sentence. In relation to the appeal against conviction, the court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or inconsistent, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court found that the jury was entitled to find that the appellant's conduct was non-consensual and that the verdict was consistent with the evidence presented at trial. In relation to the appeal against sentence, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 12 years imprisonment for count 1 was appropriate.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the convictions were safe and satisfactory in all the circumstances. The court allowed the appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 12 years imprisonment for count 1 was appropriate. The court set aside the declaration made by the primary judge under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and ordered that the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1 and 9 be set aside and the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years for count 1. The court found that the serious violent offence declaration was not appropriate in this case, as the majority of the charges occurred before the commencement of Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).