R v L - [2002] QCA 377

[2002] QCA 377

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
JONES J

CA No 144 of 2002

THE QUEEN
and
L	(Applicant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/09/2002

JUDGMENT

JONES JA: The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by the District Court following his pleas of guilty to a series of sexual offences against his step-daughter, his daughter and a young female friend of the step-daughter. Each of the complainants will be identified by initials.

The sole ground of the appeal is that the penalty is manifestly excessive. The offences are detailed in three separate indictments. Those offences and the respective penalties imposed are as follows:-

Maintaining an unlawful relationship, of a sexual nature, with his step-daughter "A" a child under the age of 16 years - 16 years' imprisonment;
Maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with his daughter "E" a child under 16 years of age - 14 years' imprisonment;
Four counts of aggravated indecent dealing with child "A" - seven years' imprisonment;
One count of procuring "A" to commit an indecent act, two counts of exposing "A" to an indecent act, three counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of "A" - 10 years' imprisonment;
Two counts of aggravated indecent dealing with "E", three counts of exposing "E" to indecent acts, three counts of procuring or permitting "E" to commit indecent acts - 10 years' imprisonment;
Two counts of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with by the child "K" - five years' imprisonment.

All sentences were to be served concurrently.

Consequently, the focus is on the penalty of 16 years' imprisonment for the first mentioned offence. The applicant was born on 17 June 1959 and is now 43 years of age. These offences occurred between October 1996 and October 1993 at which time the applicant was between 27 and 34 years old.

The complainant "A" was born on 6 October 1997. She was a child of the applicant's wife whom he married believing she was pregnant to him. Subsequent tests showed that the child "A" was not the applicant's natural daughter but she was raised by him as though she were. "A" was seven years when the offences against her were commenced and they continued until she was well into her teens. She reported the matter to the police in August 2000.

The complainant "E" is the natural daughter of the applicant and was born on 4 August 1982. The eight offences against her commenced in August 1989 when she was seven years old. They continued until she left the applicant's home a year later upon the breakdown of his marriage.

The complainant "K" was born on 12 February 1980. She was a friend of "A" and visited the applicant's home to play during the years 1993 and 1994. "K" was 13 years of age when the two offences against her occurred. These offences consisted of the applicant calling "A" and "K' into his bedroom and asking them to masturbate him.
The particulars of each of…

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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2002] QCA 377
Case: [2002] QCA 377
Decision Date: 23/09/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v L involves an applicant appealing against the sentences imposed by the District Court following his pleas of guilty to a series of sexual offences against his step-daughter, his daughter, and a young female friend of the step-daughter. The applicant argues that the penalty is manifestly excessive. The court has to decide whether the sentence imposed was outside the range of penalties that a proper exercise of the discretion would permit.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the offender's background, and the impact on the victims. It was noted that the applicant had little insight into his offending behaviour and suffered from mental health issues due to his own childhood experiences of abuse. Despite this, the court found that the starting point of 20 years for the first offence was high, but the ultimate penalty of 16 years, when taking into account the mitigating factors, was within the permissible range. The court also noted that the applicant would be eligible for parole after serving half of his sentence, making his penalty significantly less than those in other cases cited by the Crown.

The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's appeal, and the application was refused. The sentences imposed by the District Court were upheld.

Orders