R v KJB

Case [2002] QCA 448


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v KJB [2002] QCA 448
PARTIES:

R
v
KJB
(applicant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 190 of 2002
DC No 20 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT: District Court
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON: 24 October 2002
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24 October 2002
JUDGES: McPherson JA, Cullinane and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation – where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after three years – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) , s 229B

R v Batts [1997] QCA 213; CA No 58 of 1997, 18 June 1997, considered
R v Fogarty [1996] QCA  490; CA No 418 of 1996, 6 December 1996, considered
R v Jones [1992] QCA 425; CA No 264 of 1992, 4 December 1992, considered

COUNSEL:

K M McGinness for the applicant
M J Copely for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA:  I will ask Justice Cullinane to give the first judgment.

CULLINANE J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of eight years with a recommendation that he be eligible to be considered for parole after three years imposed on him following his plea of guilty by the District Court on the 7th of May 2002, for the offence of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a circumstance of aggravation, namely rape.

The offence was committed over a period of almost three years from the beginning of 1999 to November 2001.  The complainant was born on the 2nd of May 1986 and was 12 when the unlawful relationship commenced.  The applicant and the complainant's mother had married in 1998 after having lived together since 1995. 

The relationship commenced shortly before the complainant's thirteenth birthday.  The applicant's conduct towards the complainant included touching and kissing her breasts, performing oral sex upon her on one occasion, and once or twice penetrating her vagina with his fingers.  In the course of the relationship the complainant was raped by the applicant on at least two occasions.

Some parts of the complainant's statement suggests that this may have occurred on quite a number of occasions, but the learned sentencing Judge proceeded upon the basis that he raped the applicant at least twice.  The applicant's conduct occurred whilst the complainant's mother was either elsewhere in the house or asleep in bed.

The police came to speak to the applicant as a result of the complainant telling a school friend what had been happening.  Initially the applicant admitted only to the fondling of the complainant's breasts, suggesting that…

Continue reading R v KJB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v KJB [2002] QCA 448
Case
[2002] QCA 448
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, with the circumstance of aggravation that the applicant was in a position of trust or authority. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant appealed the sentence of eight years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after three years. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

The primary legal issue that the court had to determine was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of sentencing for sexual offences. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree of the applicant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and parity, and compare the sentence with similar cases.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the applicant had abused his position of trust and authority to engage in a sexual relationship with the victim, who was a child. The court also found that the aggravating circumstance of the applicant's position of trust and authority was a significant factor in the sentencing. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of sentencing for sexual offences, and concluded that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offence. The court also noted that the recommendation for parole after three years provided an opportunity for the applicant to demonstrate rehabilitation and remorse.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.