R v Lonesborough - [1999] QCA 120

99.120

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ McPHERSON JA THOMAS JA

CA No 428 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

PETER JOHN LONESBOROUGH	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 13/04/99 130499 T11/SJ3 M/T COA72/99

THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted in the District Court on three separate indictments. On the first indictment there were eight counts of rape relating to the first female complainant who was the applicant's de facto partner at the time. The second indictment alleged one count of rape relating to a second female complainant who had met the applicant some 10 days before the incident. The third indictment contained three counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and a further count of unlawful use of motor vehicle.

The applicant was arrested in October 1997 in relation to the rapes of the first complainant. He was on bail when he committed the rape on the second complainant in April 1998. When approached by police he took flight giving rise to the offences detailed in the third indictment. On the first indictment he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. On the second indictment he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment to be served cumulatively and these convictions were declared to be ones for serious violent offences.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the
remaining offences in the third indictment to be served
concurrently with the other sentences and there was a
further declaration of absolute disqualification from
holding a driver's licence. The total sentence imposed
130499 T11/SJ3 M/T COA72/99
was therefore 20 years' imprisonment with 80 per cent
having to be served.

The circumstances which I shall now recount are largely taken from the summary presented on behalf of the applicant. Count 1 commences in the month of September 1997 at Bribie where the applicant had had a falling-out with the complainant whom he had known for about 12 months. She had made it clear to him that she was unwilling to have further sexual activity with him at that time. An argument erupted in the bedroom over the question of sexual relations. The applicant left it and returned with a large kitchen knife with a 20 centimetre blade. He threatened to stab himself and then told the complainant to remove her clothes and held the knife to her throat. He tore off her underwear, tied her hands behind her back and then had intercourse with her. She was crying during this act and described it as very painful.

The second count occurred not long afterwards. He allowed her to get dressed again and then told her to get undressed and repeated a forceful intercourse with her. They then remained in the bed until morning.

On the next morning which concerns counts three and four
the applicant forced the complainant to have intercourse
against her will. She cried out in pain and was told to
shut up. After that occasion he forced his penis into
her anus. At…

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 Lonesborough

Details

AGLC: R v Lonesborough [1999] QCA 120
Case: [1999] QCA 120
Decision Date: 13/04/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Peter John Lonesborough, was convicted in the District Court on multiple counts of rape, assault, and dangerous driving. The case reached the Court of Appeal, where the applicant contested the severity of his sentence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence failed to recognise the totality principle and should be reduced.

The Court of Appeal considered various factors in its decision. These included the applicant's escalating and depraved violations of women, the use of a weapon during some of the offences, the multiplicity of the offences, and the significant emotional and physical damage to the victims. The Court also considered the applicant's criminal history, which showed a pattern of violence towards women and other serious offences. The Court noted that the applicant's amphetamine addiction might have influenced his dangerous driving but not the rapes. The Court reviewed past cases involving similar offences to ensure consistency in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while the sentences were high, they were not manifestly excessive. The totality of the applicant's conduct warranted a serious sentence for personal and general deterrence and community protection. The Court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate and refused the applicant's appeal. The Chief Justice and Justices McPherson and Thomas all agreed with this decision.

Orders