R v LP

Case [2005] QCA 266


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LP [2005] QCA 266

PARTIES:

R
v
LP
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 108 of 2005
DC No 271 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


1 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson, Williams and Jerrard JJA
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – incest committed against applicant’s 10 and 12 year old daughters – whether sentence of six years’ imprisonment manifestly excessive

R v B [2000] QCA 42; CA No 345 of 1999, 24 February 2000, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared in person
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared in person
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA:  The applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of three counts of incest, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under sixteen years of age, who in each instance was his natural daughter.

In fact there were two complainants, both daughters of the applicant.  One of them, A, was 10 years old when the offending began and the other, K, was 12 years old.  All offences were committed against A except for one count of indecent treatment against K. He was sentenced to six years for the offences of incest and five years for the others, to be served concurrently.

The applicant, who was 32 to 34 years of age when he offended, lived with his wife and children, of whom there were five in all, three of them girls, including the two complainants. The applicant came from Victoria, where he was born in 1968 and grew up in a family of five children on a dairy farm owned by his parents. He had some difficulties at school, which he left at about age 16 to go to work.  He claims to have been bullied by an older brother who sexually abused him and his brothers and sisters.

On leaving school he worked at various occupations before coming to Queensland with his family, where he has been working for the past 10 years or so as a coach builder. His employer, his work mates and friends speak well of him.  Since these incidents were reported, he has been living at the home of friends, who also speak highly of him.

The schedule of facts presented by the prosecutor at sentencing, shows that count 1 took place between January 2001 and December 2002, when the complainant A was 10 years’ old.  The applicant entered her bedroom at night, rubbed…

Continue reading R v LP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v LP [2005] QCA 266
Case
[2005] QCA 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, LP, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him following his conviction for committing incest against his two daughters, aged 10 and 12 years old. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of six years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, warranting an appeal. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe and did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the crime and his personal situation.

The court considered the principles governing appeals against sentences, emphasizing the need for a sentence to be manifestly excessive to warrant an appeal. It evaluated the nature of the offence, the impact on the victims, and the relevant sentencing principles. The court held that while the offence was of a serious nature, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes, considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and did not warrant an appeal.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court confirmed that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge.

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.