R v Ju

[2012] QCA 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JU [2012] QCA 230

PARTIES:

R
v
JU
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 208 of 2011
DC No 177 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and White JJA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under applicant’s care, one count of maintaining sexual relationship with child under 16, and one count of incest – where applicant sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, eight years imprisonment, and five years imprisonment on those counts respectively, served concurrently – where sentencing judge did not fix a parole eligibility date – whether sentencing judge erred in not fixing a parole eligibility date – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 222
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160D

R v CAM[2009] QCA 44, considered
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered
R v KN[2005] QCA 74, considered
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, cited
R v SAU[2006] QCA 192, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of White JA and the order she proposes.

1. WHITE JA: On 28 April 2011 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 with the aggravating circumstance that she was under his care; one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16; and one count of incest.  Sentence was adjourned to facilitate the preparation of a pre-sentence report and bail was extended without objection. 

1. On 24 June 2011 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court at Ipswich as follows:

Count 1 (indecent treatment) – twelve months imprisonment;

Count 2 (maintaining) – eight years imprisonment; and

Count 4 (incest) – five years imprisonment.

All of those sentences were to be served concurrently.  His Honour specifically made no parole eligibility date.  The prosecution entered a nolle prosequi with respect to count three – another count of incest.

1. Before this court the applicant appeared on his own behalf.  He sought a parole eligibility date after serving between two and a half and three years of his eight year sentence.  By that submission and the ground of appeal appearing in his application:

“The learned Sentencing Judge erred in not fixing a parole eligibility date”[1]

it may be taken that the applicant contends that…