R v Jerome - [1997] QCA 299

[1997] QCA 299

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS J

CA No 230 of 1997

THE QUEEN

TROY JEROME Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 18/07/97

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: Mr Justice Davies will deliver the first judgment.

DAVIES JA: The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 23 May last of burglary for which he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, rape for which he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, indecent assault for which he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and indecent assault with digital penetration for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment.

The sentences were concurrent so that the effective term was one of 14 years. However they were imposed cumulatively upon a term of imprisonment which he was then serving, being one of five years for attempted rape and indecent assault.

The offences the subject of the conviction and sentence on 23 May last were committed on 2 September 1996 whilst he was on parole in respect of the earlier offences. His full time discharge date in respect of the earlier offences was said to have been 31 May 1996. He seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on 23 May.

Prior to the earlier offences to which I have referred, the applicant had a substantial criminal history dating from 1978 when he was a juvenile. Most of them were for offences of dishonesty and driving offences and some of them resulted in short terms of imprisonment.

The principal offence for which he was sentenced in 1993 was the attempted rape of his 72 year old grandmother, who at the time lived with the applicant. She entered her room to find the applicant naked and with an erection. She chastised him and told him to go to his room and sleep and he left without comment. A short time later he entered the lounge room where she was sitting, still naked and with an erection but with socks on his hands. It is plain that by this time he intended to rape her.

He pulled her from her chair and inserted fingers into her mouth whenever she screamed. He dragged her into his room, closed the door, threw her on his bed, removed the light bulb, tore her clothes off and attempted to rape her. When she asked for a drink he let her up and followed her to the kitchen. She attempted to get a knife from the knife drawer but he apprehended her and threw her to the floor. He then dragged her back to his room where he forced his penis into her mouth. When she said she was haemorrhaging he allowed her to go to the toilet but stayed there with her. Whilst she was on the toilet he again forced his penis into her mouth, stopping only when she indicated she was going to be sick.

The complainant eventually managed to escape to the next-door house where she rang the police. He was, as I have said,…

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 Jerome

Details

AGLC: R v Jerome [1997] QCA 299
Case: [1997] QCA 299
Decision Date: 18/07/97

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Troy Jerome against his sentences imposed by the District Court. Jerome was convicted of burglary, rape, indecent assault, and indecent assault with digital penetration, all of which occurred while he was on parole for previous offences. The District Court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 14 years, in addition to the five-year sentence Jerome was already serving for attempted rape and indecent assault. Jerome sought leave to appeal against these sentences.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the parole recommendation was appropriate. The Court considered whether the sentence, particularly in light of Jerome's criminal history and the nature of the offences, was disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offences. The Court also needed to determine if the sentencing judge properly considered the plea of guilty and the need for deterrence.

The Court found that while the sentence was high, it was not manifestly excessive. The Court noted the planning and premeditation involved in the offences, the fact that they were committed while Jerome was on parole, and the similarity to previous offences. The Court concluded that the sentence was within the range of a sound sentencing discretion, although it identified two errors in the sentencing judge's reasons. The Court granted the appeal to correct the omission of a fresh parole recommendation, specifying that Jerome should serve until 23 February 2003 before being eligible to apply for parole. The Court emphasised that the eligibility for parole at that time would depend on the assessment of the risk Jerome posed to women.

Orders