R v LS

[2006] QCA 354

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LS [2006] QCA 354

PARTIES:

R
v
LS
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 194 of 2006
DC No 1626 of 2006
DC No 3011 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 August 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Wilson and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application granted
2. Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the period of suspension in respect of the sentences for counts 2, 3 and 4 on Indictment No. 3011 of 2005 from nine months to five months

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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – where applicant has severe physical difficulties which cause significant pain and affect his mobility – where his time in detention is made more difficult due to his condition – whether the sentence should be varied to take account of these difficulties – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v B [2000] QCA 42; CA No 345 of 1999, 24 February 2000, cited
R v Pope; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1996] QCA 318, cited
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587, applied
R v Vachalec [1981] 1 NSWLR 351, cited
R v Vachon [1998] QCA 185, cited

COUNSEL:

T D Martin SC for the applicant/appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  I agree with Douglas J.

1. WILSON J:      I have read the reasons for judgment of Douglas J. I agree with the order proposed and with his Honour's reasons.

1. DOUGLAS J:  The issue in this application is whether the applicant’s sentences should be varied to take into account difficulties he has in detention because of painful physical injuries that affect his mobility. The ground of appeal is that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.  The submissions focussed on an argument that the period of suspension of the sentences ordered should have been three months rather than nine months.

1. The applicant was sentenced on 16 June 2006 to three years imprisonment suspended after nine months on his plea of guilty to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years whilst under care, to two years imprisonment suspended after nine months on another such count and to 12 months imprisonment suspended after three months in respect of charges of indecent dealing with a child under 16, two of which had the circumstance of aggravation that the child was under 12 years.  A summary of the relevant facts derived from the applicant’s submissions shows that there were three separate complainants and sets out the details of the offences.   

Details of…