R v MBJ

Case [2010] QCA 211

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MBJ [2010] QCA 211

PARTIES:

R
v
MBJ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 72 of 2010
DC No 73 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Chief Justice and Fraser JA concurring as to the order made, Muir JA dissenting

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – applicant sentenced to 13 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the penile rape of his three year old nephew – complainant suffered injuries – applicant and complainant resided in same household – applicant in position of trust in relation to complainant – applicant submitted early guilty plea – applicant 21 years of age at time of offending – applicant with no relevant criminal history – applicant expressed remorse – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A

R v Corr;ex parte A-G (Qld)[2010] QCA 40, considered
R v D [2003] QCA 148, considered
R v D [2003] QCA 88, considered
R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered
R v Jones [2010] NSWCCA 108, cited
R v KAC [2010] QCA 39, considered
R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2009] QCA 274, cited
R v RAC [2008] QCA 185, considered
R v TK [2004] QCA 394, considered
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited

COUNSEL:

D C Shepherd for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA.  I am grateful for His Honour’s recitation of the facts, which I adopt, and for his analysis of the arguably comparable previous decisions.

  1. I regard R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69 as of the greatest assistance here.

  1. The sentence affirmed on appeal in Daphney was substantial, described by White J (as Her Honour was) as "not a light punishment to have [been] imposed upon … a relatively young man".  I respectfully agree with that.  But it nevertheless falls within the range of sentences which might be imposed for offending broadly comparable to the present.

  1. In summary, the sentence of 15 years imposed in Daphney was substantial, but it was effectively confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 1999, and goes to describe the range applicable in cases of this general character.

  1. While sentences in some other cases, like R v Corr; ex parte A-G [2010] QCA 40 and R v D [2003] QCA 88, may suggest this one was rigorous, the present object is not to adjust the…

Continue reading R v MBJ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MBJ [2010] QCA 211
Case
[2010] QCA 211
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MBJ involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to the penile rape of his three-year-old nephew. The offence occurred when the applicant and the complainant resided in the same household, and the applicant was in a position of trust in relation to the complainant. The applicant, who was 21 years of age at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal history. He expressed remorse and submitted an early guilty plea. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court evaluated the severity of the offence, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the personal circumstances of the applicant. The court acknowledged the gravity of the crime, the significant injuries suffered by the complainant, and the breach of trust by the applicant. Despite the applicant's early guilty plea, remorse, and lack of a criminal history, the court found that the sentence was appropriate in light of the circumstances.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the need for general deterrence, the protection of the community, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold the dignity of the court. The court dismissed the application for a new trial or appeal against the sentence, finding that the sentence was just and appropriate.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for a new trial or appeal against sentence. The court upheld the original sentence of 13 years' imprisonment, emphasising the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.