R v Jones

Case [2003] QCA 450


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v Jones [2003] QCA 450
PARTIES:  R
v
JONES, Sidney Arthur
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 285 of 2003
DC No 97 of 2003
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence Application
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX  16 October 2003
TEMPORE ON: 
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  16 October 2003
JUDGES:  McPherson JA and Mackenzie and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:  Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – whether exceptional circumstances must be
present after conviction of sexual offence against a young
person to avoid some period of imprisonment
COUNSEL:  B Devereaux for the applicant
D McKenzie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McPHERSON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of four months' imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Mackay on 21st August 2003. The applicant was convicted after a trial on an indictment charging one count of sexual assault on a school girl. After having been convicted, the applicant was released on bail some 12 days later pending the outcome of the appeal that is now before us.

The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence is 70 years old. Until the events giving rise to this application, he was a school and tour bus driver in and around Mirani. The

complainant was at that time a girl aged 16 years who was a
student at a local High School. On the last day of school in
2002, which was the 29th November, the students returned from
a camp where they had been for a while to the school.

Although the complainant was not a passenger on the applicant's bus, her luggage was being carried on his bus. On arrival she went to the applicant's bus to retrieve her luggage and to wait for a bus which would take her home. The complainant spoke to the applicant as had happened some three to four times a week since she had met him in the role of a bus driver. They began speaking while they were standing next to the bus, but then another bus arrived and the applicant needed to move his bus, so he suggested to the complainant that she get on his bus while he moved it out of the way.

The complainant sat on the corner in front of the first seat on the passenger side of the bus with her legs dangling over the stairs. The applicant was in the driver's seat. The

complainant began telling the applicant about an event she had and put his arm around the complainant's waist and squeezed her right breast with his hand outside her clothing. The complainant moved back to the place she…

Continue reading R v Jones

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jones [2003] QCA 450
Case
[2003] QCA 450
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones arose from a criminal trial where the defendant was convicted of serious offences. The nature of the dispute involved the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The matter was brought before the court for review and possible appeal against the sentence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including any exceptional circumstances, in determining the sentence. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and did not adequately reflect mitigating factors.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the discretion exercised by the trial judge. It considered whether the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a different outcome. The court noted that while the offences were serious, the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the defendant's background, the circumstances of the crime, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately and had not overlooked any significant mitigating factors.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court emphasised that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and that the trial judge had conducted a thorough sentencing process. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant a different outcome and that the sentence was within the bounds of judicial discretion. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.