R v MBG and mbH

Case [2009] QCA 252


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MBG & MBH [2009] QCA 252

PARTIES:

R
v
MBG
(applicant)

R
v
MBH

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 307 of 2008
CA No 287 of 2008
DC No 2826 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicants, husband and wife, pleaded guilty to maintaining unlawful sexual relationship with seven to eight year old daughter, and to 13 other sexual offences, including two counts of rape, against her, and to sexual offences against friends of their daughter, a 14 year old and nine year old, including a count of rape against the latter; and male applicant pleaded guilty to indecent treatment of another nine year old – where applicants each sentenced to 10 and a half years imprisonment on the maintaining count, with a serious violent offence declaration, and to shorter, concurrent terms for the other sexual offences – whether sentences manifestly excessive

R v BAO [2004] QCA 445, cited
R v BAX
[2005] QCA 365, cited
R v BAY
(2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, cited
R v BBM[2008] QCA 162, cited
R v C; ex parte A-G
(Qld) [2003] QCA 134, cited
R v DAF[2004] QCA 368, cited
R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G; R v Dickeson[2004] QCA 78, cited
R v HAP[2008] QCA 137, cited
R v R[2000] QCA 279, cited
R v TR & FV; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2008] QCA 221, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  The applications for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Holmes JA. 

  1. HOLMES JA:  The applicants for leave to appeal against sentence are husband and wife.  They were jointly charged with, and pleaded guilty to, one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, their daughter A, who was seven to eight years old during the period over which the relationship was alleged; two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape of A; 10 counts of indecent treatment of A with the circumstances of aggravation that she was under 12 years, and was their lineal descendant; rape of B, a nine year old friend of A; three counts of indecent treatment of B, with the aggravating circumstances that she was under 12 years and under their care; and…

Continue reading R v MBG and mbH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MBG & MBH [2009] QCA 252
Case
[2009] QCA 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, a husband and wife, appealed against their sentences for multiple serious sexual offences against their seven to eight year old daughter and others. They were convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with their daughter, along with 13 other sexual offences, including two counts of rape. The male applicant also pleaded guilty to indecent treatment of another nine year old. They were sentenced to 10 and a half years imprisonment on the maintaining count, with a serious violent offence declaration, and to shorter concurrent terms for the other sexual offences. The applicants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicants contended that the sentences were disproportionately severe given the circumstances and the lack of any mitigating factors. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the age of the victims, and the impact on them. The applicants' lack of remorse and history of similar offending were also taken into account. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were within the range of appropriate penalties for such serious sexual offences.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The severity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the applicants' history of offending were significant factors in the sentencing decision. The court held that the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for these types of offences. The appeals were dismissed, and the applicants' leave to appeal was denied. The court upheld the original sentences, finding no grounds for interference.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for leave to appeal 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.