R v KU; ex parte Attorney-General (No 2)

This appeal concerns the sentencing of nine respondents, six adults and three juveniles, who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape of a 10-year-old girl. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge provided adequate reasons for the sentences imposed, and whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate. The Attorney-General had appealed against the sentences, arguing they were inadequate given the gravity of the offences.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately explain the reasons for the sentences imposed. The judge had referred to the offence as "having sex with young girls" rather than "rape" and had stated that all respondents would be treated the same "in terms of the behaviour." The court held that this was insufficient under the statutory requirements for sentencing reasons. Additionally, the court found that the sentences were manifestly inadequate. The adult respondents were sentenced to fully suspended terms of six months imprisonment, while the juvenile respondents were sentenced to 12 months probation with no conviction recorded. The court noted that sexual offences by adults on children usually warrant custodial sentences, and sexual offences by juveniles on children usually warrant a term of detention.

The court also considered whether the Attorney-General could appeal against the sentences despite the prosecution's earlier submissions that non-custodial sentences were appropriate. The court held that the Attorney-General was not precluded from appealing due to the prosecution's submissions, and that the appeal should proceed if the court found the sentencing process had miscarried. The court concluded that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and ordered new sentences for each respondent. For the adults, the court ordered imprisonment terms of six years, while for the juveniles, the court ordered detention or probation with additional conditions. The court also ordered that convictions be recorded for the juvenile respondents.