R v PAN - [2011] QCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PAN [2011] QCA 192

PARTIES:

R
v
PAN
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 257 of 2010
DC No 152 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2011

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child with aggravation, one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child and numerous other sexual offences – where the complainants were the applicant’s four biological daughters and two step-daughters – where the applicant progressively offended against each daughter over a period of about 17 years – where the applicant commenced raping the children at a very young age – where the applicant created an environment of fear and intimidation in the home and manipulated the complainants – where the applicant entered a very late plea after his arraignment on the first day of trial – where the applicant received a head sentence of 17 years imprisonment – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v H[2001] QCA 167, considered
R v P; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 188, considered
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M Connolly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: This application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused for the reasons given by Fraser JA. The sentence imposed appropriately reflected both the grievous nature and effect of the applicant's offending and the sole mitigating feature that the applicant pleaded guilty at a late stage saving his wife and four adult complainants from the trauma of giving evidence.

I agree with the order proposed by Fraser JA.

FRASER JA: The applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of numerous sexual offences against six children, all of whom with the exception of the eldest and youngest, were the applicant’s biological daughters. The six children were part of the applicant’s family and all of them regarded him as their father. On each of five counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with the circumstance of aggravation that the applicant raped the child, the applicant was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment. On a sixth count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child the applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. The applicant was also sentenced to: eight years imprisonment on each of four separate counts…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v PAN

Details

AGLC: R v PAN [2011] QCA 192
Case: [2011] QCA 192
Decision Date: 12 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v PAN, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of maintaining unlawful sexual relationships with children and various other sexual offences, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The victims were the applicant's four biological daughters and two step-daughters. The abuse had been ongoing for approximately 17 years, starting at a very young age for each of the victims. The applicant had created a home environment of fear and intimidation, manipulating the victims throughout the period of abuse. The applicant entered a plea of guilty very late, on the first day of the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of 17 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the vulnerability of the victims. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence reflected the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It acknowledged the gravity of the crimes and the vulnerability of the victims. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such serious crimes. The court also noted the late plea of guilty, which it considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not require interference and was therefore affirmed.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, confirming that the sentence of 17 years imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v PAN [2011] QCA 192
PARTIES:	R v PAN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 257 of 2010 DC No 152 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	12 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child with aggravation, one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child and numerous other sexual offences – where the complainants were the applicant’s four biological daughters and two step-daughters – where the applicant progressively offended against each daughter over a period of about 17 years – where the applicant commenced raping the children at a very young age – where the applicant created an environment of fear and intimidation in the home and manipulated the complainants – where the applicant entered a very late plea after his arraignment on the first day of trial – where the applicant received a head sentence of 17 years imprisonment – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v H[2001] QCA 167, considered R v P; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 188, considered R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M Connolly for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent