R v Levack; ex parte - [1999] QCA 448

99.448

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P THOMAS JA ATKINSON J

CA No 263 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

KEITH STEWART LEVACK	Respondent
Ex parte
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 27/10/99
THE PRESIDENT: The respondent pleaded guilty to sexual
offences committed upon young boys. The first indictment to
which the respondent pleaded guilty contained one count of
indecent dealing with a child under 12, two counts of indecent
dealing with a child under 16, one count of procuring a child
to commit an indecent act, and one count of maintaining a
sexual relationship with a child under 16. These offences
spanned 31 December 1991 to 1 January 1993 and occurred at
Ipswich; they were committed upon one complainant who was 10
or 11 at the time the offences commenced.

The second indictment to which the respondent pleaded guilty covered the period from 1 January 1998 to 11 October 1998 and comprised 13 counts of taking a child for immoral purposes, including three with circumstances of aggravation, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 with circumstances of aggravation, 18 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. These charges involved five boys aged from eight to 14 years and occurred in the Logan area.

On 7 July 1999 the respondent was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration for
parole after three years in respect of the maintaining
offence, and to lesser concurrent sentences of imprisonment in
respect of the remaining offences. The appellant, the
Attorney-General of Queensland, claims the sentence imposed
was manifestly inadequate.
In addition to the formal sentence, the respondent was ordered
for 10 years after his release from custody to report any
change of address within 48 hours under section 19 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act (1945). The learned sentencing
Judge further strongly suggested that the respondent
immediately, and whilst in custody, receive psychiatric,
psychological, and medical treatment.

The respondent was 50 years old and had a worrying criminal history. In 1970 he was placed on probation with a psychiatric clause for two counts of aggravated assault on a male child under the age of 14 years. In 1971 he was convicted of stealing and false pretences and given a community based order. Far more significantly, on 15 December 1980 he was again convicted of four charges of aggravated assault of a sexual nature on a male child under the age of 14 years and was given a further period of probation, this time for three years with medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment.

These offences were committed on a seven-year-old child in a
toilet block at a caravan park. The boy was in the shower and
the respondent played with and then sucked the boy's penis.
In 1978 the respondent fondled a seven-year- old boy's penis
in the toilets at Woolworths Booval. In 1979 he repeated this
conduct on a six-year-old boy, this time kissing the penis.
In December of that…

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 Levack; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Levack; ex parte [1999] QCA 448
Case: [1999] QCA 448
Decision Date: 27/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal brought by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on Keith Stewart Levack, who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual offences against young boys. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence of eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after three years was manifestly inadequate. Levack's offending history included multiple prior convictions for similar offences and he had been placed on probation with psychiatric treatment on two separate occasions. The crimes against his victims caused significant behavioural problems and withdrawal from school.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge was manifestly inadequate. The Court examined the appropriate sentencing range for such offences and compared it to the sentence imposed on Levack. The Court found that the sentence fell within the range of eight to 10 years imprisonment, which was the range argued by the prosecutor at the time of sentencing.

The Court found that the learned sentencing Judge had properly considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence, including Levack's criminal history, the seriousness of the offences, and the need for deterrence. The Court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was appropriate and dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal. The order is that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders