R v MCB; Ex parte

Case [2014] QCA 151

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MCB; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 151

PARTIES:

R
v
MCB
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 22 of 2014
DC No 266 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:


24 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of rape and seven counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – where the respondent was sentenced on the count of rape to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years – where the respondent was sentenced on each count of indecent treatment to nine months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation with conditions – where the appellant contended the sentence was manifestly inadequate – where mitigating factors for the respondent included remorse, cooperation with authorities, suffering from psychiatric conditions, an early plea of guilty and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – where aggravating factors included a criminal history, filming of the offences and that the offending occurred while the respondent was subject to an intensive correction order – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2000 (Qld), s 36(1)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, applied
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, applied
R v AAD[2008] QCA 4, considered
R v BBE[2006] QCA 532, considered
R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 128, cited
R v Bull[2012] QCA 74, considered
R v DBC; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2012] QCA 203, cited
R v GAP [2013] 1 Qd R 427; [2012] QCA 193, considered
R v KU; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (No 2) [2011] 1 Qd R 439; [2008] QCA 154, cited
R v Lee[2012] QCA 313, considered
R v M[2003] QCA 443, considered
R v Price; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2011] QCA 87, cited
R v SAH[2004] QCA 329, considered
R v Vincent, ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2001] 2 Qd R 327; [2000] QCA 250, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA…

Continue reading R v MCB; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MCB; Ex parte [2014] QCA 151
Case
[2014] QCA 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MCB; Ex parte, the respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of rape and seven counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, and under care. The respondent was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years for the rape count, and nine months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation with conditions for each count of indecent treatment. The appellant, on behalf of the respondent, contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors presented. The court considered the respondent's remorse, cooperation with authorities, psychiatric conditions, early plea of guilty, and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation as mitigating factors. Conversely, the court also took into account the respondent's criminal history, the filming of the offences, and the fact that the offending occurred while the respondent was subject to an intensive correction order as aggravating factors.

The court found that, despite the mitigating factors, the severity of the offences and the need to protect the community and deter similar offences outweighed these considerations. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by the respondent.

In light of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.