EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 277 of 2006 DC No 515 of 2006
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
17 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 November 2006
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, de Jersey CJ and Chesterman J concurring as to the orders made, Holmes JA dissenting
ORDERS:
1. Allow the appeal
2. Set aside the intensive correction order imposed in respect of count two
3. Set aside the order made in respect of count one, and order in lieu, in respect of each of counts one and two, that the respondent be imprisoned (concurrently) for 18 months, suspended after three months for an operational period of two years
4. That a bench warrant issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days prior to any necessary execution
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY – APPLICATION TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – sexual offences – age disparity and breach of trust – whether circumstances “exceptional” such that respondent to be spared actual imprisonment
P J Davis SC for the appellant A J Kimmins, with K Greenwood, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Price & Roobottom for the respondent
CJ: de JERSEYThe respondent, then 29 years of age, pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of indecent treatment of a child aged under 16 years. At the time of the offending, the complainant was aged 14 years, and the respondent was aged 27 years. The respondent was the complainant’s former school teacher, in mathematics and science.
The respondent left the complainant’s school in circumstances where a friendly relationship had developed between the complainant and him. He subsequently sustained that friendship by telephone and internet contact, and about three months later arranged to meet again with the complainant. The respondent drove her to an isolated location near Bundaberg, where in his car he caressed and sucked her breasts, that misconduct founding the first count. The…
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 Quick; ex parte A-G (Qld)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Quick; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 477
Case
[2006] QCA 477
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Quick; ex parte A-G (Qld), the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentence imposed on Quick, who was convicted of sexual offences involving age disparity and a breach of trust. The Court of Appeal was required to consider whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to warrant sparing Quick actual imprisonment. The legal issues before the court involved the proper application of sentencing principles, particularly whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offences.
The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that the sentence reflects the community's condemnation of the conduct. The court considered the appellant's arguments that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the crimes. The court acknowledged the age disparity and the breach of trust as significant factors but also considered the respondent's personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the gravity of the offences and, therefore, the appeal was allowed.
As a result of the appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the intensive correction order imposed on count two and the order made in respect of count one. Instead, the court ordered that Quick be imprisoned for 18 months, suspended after three months for an operational period of two years, for each of the counts. The court also issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Quick, to lie in the Registry for seven days before any necessary execution. This decision emphasised the importance of an appropriate and proportionate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Allow the appeal
2. Set aside the intensive correction order imposed in respect of count two
3. Set aside the order made in respect of count one, and order in lieu, in respect of each of counts one and two, that the respondent be imprisoned (concurrently) for 18 months, suspended after three months for an operational period of two years
4. That a bench warrant issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days prior to any necessary execution