SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v LJ [2004] QCA 114
PARTIES:
R
v
LJ(applicant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 407 of 2003
DC No 492 of 2003
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
14 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 April 2004
JUDGES:
McPherson and Williams JJA, Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE – where the applicant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in respect to numerous sexual offences which occurred over a 11 year period – where all offences were committed against the applicant’s natural daughter – whether the sentence is outside the appropriate range for offences of this kind, committed on a single complainant
R v AP [2003] QCA 445; CA No 133 of 2003, 17 October 2003, considered
COUNSEL:
K M McGinness for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
HOLMES J: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted after a trial of six counts of indecent dealing with a child under 12 years, seven counts of incest, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and one count of sodomy. All offences were committed against his daughter.
He was sentenced to 14 years in respect of the first of the incest counts committed when the complainant was about 12, and to lesser concurrent sentences in respect of the remaining counts.
The first of the offences was committed when the complainant was seven years of age and involved touching of her breast area and genitals.
Later when she was about nine years old, the applicant seems to have developed a practice of requiring her to sleep in his bed and committed a number of offences in that context putting his fingers in her vagina, making her rub his penis, and on one occasion which formed the basis of a count, making her suck his penis and swallow the ejaculate.
When the complainant was 12, the applicant had full sexual intercourse with her for the first time.
Of the remaining counts, there was assault occasioning bodily harm which involved a severe beating with a strap followed by the applicant sodomising the complainant as an extension of the punishment. Another count involved the applicant having intercourse with the complainant and with a female cousin at the same time; and another again, intercourse with the complainant while the complainant's brother was made to have intercourse with the cousin in the same double bed. The remaining offences involve two instances of vaginal and one of anal intercourse. The conduct continued until the complainant was 18.
The applicant was 59 years of age at the time…
Continue reading R v LJ
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v LJ [2004] QCA 114
- Case
- [2004] QCA 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was outside the appropriate range for offences of this kind, and whether the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the circumstances of the offence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for sexual offences, the gravity of the offences, and the impact of the offences on the victim. The court also considered the need to deter the applicant and others from committing similar offences.
The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range for offences of this kind, and that the trial judge had given sufficient weight to the circumstances of the offence. The court noted the seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victim, and the need to deter the applicant and others from committing similar offences. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was outside the appropriate range. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.