R v M

Case [2003] QCA 443


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v M [2003] QCA 443

PARTIES:

R
v
M
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 114 of 2003
CA No 276 of 2003
DC No 3292 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDINGS:

Appeal against Conviction
Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal against conviction dismissed
2.  Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence allowed
3.  Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW -  APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNRESONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant convicted of two counts of indecent treatment of child under 12 who is a lineal descendant - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory and unreasonable on the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE -  JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT -  where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment for rape and two years imprisonment on two counts of indecent treatment, to be served concurrently – where appellant had no prior convictions – where appellant father of victim – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 349
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 440, referred to
Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant
C Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  The appellant was charged with four sexual offences alleged to have been committed on his son on about 25 November 2001.  On 8 April 2003, in the District Court at Brisbane, the jury found him guilty of count 1, rape; not guilty of count 2, rape, and not guilty of the alternative verdict on count 2, indecent dealing with a child under 16; and guilty of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 who is a lineal descendant.  He appeals against those convictions on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and unreasonable on the evidence.  He was sentenced to three years imprisonment for rape and two years imprisonment on each count of indecent of treatment, all sentences to be served concurrently.  He also applies for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against conviction

  1. The appellant and his wife, the mother of the victim, were married on 25 August 1990.  Their son was born in mid-1995.  The couple separated in early 2000 and the appellant's wife had the day to day custody of their son, with the appellant exercising regular access.  He visited fortnightly and on occasions stayed overnight.  The boy and his mother…

Continue reading R v M

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v M [2003] QCA 443
Case
[2003] QCA 443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, who was convicted of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 who is a lineal descendant, appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court, where the appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and unsafe on the evidence presented. The court was required to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, as well as whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the evidence presented during the trial and the credibility of the witnesses. It was determined that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, as the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's lack of prior convictions and the fact that he was the father of the victim.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence was allowed. However, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, as the court found that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction, allow the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence, and refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence allowed

3. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.