R v PAK

Case [2010] QCA 187

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PAK [2010] QCA 187

PARTIES:

R
v
PAK
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 30 of 2010
DC No 220 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 July 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Chesterman JA and Douglas J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

3. Application for leave to adduce evidence, filed 2 July 2010, refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where appellant convicted of a raft of sexual offences committed upon his stepdaughter and covered the period over which the complainant’s age ranged from seven to fifteen years – where the most serious offence was that of maintaining a sexual relationship over that period with a child under 16 years of age including anal intercourse and indecent dealing for which the appellant was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment – where the appellant was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years for the anal intercourse – where the other convictions, three counts of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with and four counts of indecent dealing, attracted concurrent four year terms – where appellant was aged between 40 and 48 years when he committed the offences and had no prior criminal convictions – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant convicted of a raft of sexual offences committed upon his stepdaughter and covered the period over which the complainant’s age ranged from seven to fifteen years – where complainant’s evidence was sufficiently cogent and her recollection sufficiently reliable to justify acceptance of her evidence by the jury – whether verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where appellant applied for leave to adduce new evidence – where there was no evidence that the matters in question were not discovered or not reasonably discoverable prior to the trial – where the evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant would not ordinarily have been admissible at the trial – where the evidence sought to be adduced is vague and incomplete – whether leave should be granted

Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; [1989] HCA 35, applied
Nicholls v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196; [2005] HCA 1, cited
R v AAF[2008] QCA 235, cited
R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA…

Continue reading R v PAK

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v PAK [2010] QCA 187
Case
[2010] QCA 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in the case of R v PAK, appealed against his conviction and sentence for a series of sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter. These offences spanned the period during which the victim was aged between seven and fifteen years. The most severe offence, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16, which included anal intercourse and indecent dealing, was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment. The appellant was also sentenced to five years for the anal intercourse offence, and four-year concurrent terms for three counts of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with and four counts of indecent dealing. The appellant, aged between 40 and 48 at the time of the offences, had no prior criminal convictions. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence, and whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable considering the evidence, and whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence. The court evaluated the severity of the crimes, the reliability of the victim's testimony, and the admissibility of the proposed new evidence. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's age and lack of prior criminal history warranted a different sentencing outcome.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the jury's verdict was reasonable based on the evidence presented. The appellant's argument that the sentence was excessive was rejected, as the court found that the severity of the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence. The reliability of the victim's testimony was upheld, despite the lengthy time elapsed since the events. The court also refused the application to adduce new evidence, finding that it was neither newly discovered nor reasonably discoverable prior to the trial, and that it would not ordinarily have been admissible at the trial. Additionally, the evidence was deemed vague and incomplete.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused, and the application for leave to adduce evidence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

3. Application for leave to adduce evidence, filed 2 July 2010, 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.