R v McQueeney

In the matter of the Queen versus McQueeney, the respondent sought leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence. The applicant had been convicted of attempting to engage in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten years. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and unjust. This involved a consideration of the principles set out in the case of Veen v The Queen, particularly the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences.

The court examined the relevant authorities and the principles established in Veen, which emphasise the importance of consistency in sentencing. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given the absence of physical contact and the fact that the victim was not aware of the offence. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the need for denunciation, and the importance of general deterrence. It also took into account the offender's background and the Veen principles, which require a comparison with similar cases to ensure consistency. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment, but it determined that the sentence was not so excessive as to be unjust. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of consistency in sentencing and the need to balance the principles of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence.