R v. R - [1998] QCA 360

[1998] QCA 360

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 231 of 1998
CA No 232 of 1998

THE QUEEN

R Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 25/08/98

JUDGMENT

AMBROSE J: These are applications for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon the applicant for offences committed upon young children under his control.

The sentences were imposed with respect to two sets of offences. The first, chronologically, related to offences committed between 1984 and 1990 upon two female children of the de facto partner of the applicant. The second sentence was imposed with respect to offences committed on two different children of a different de facto partner in the period 1993 to 1995. The sentences were imposed with respect to the earlier series of offences subsequent to the sentences imposed in respect of the later offences.

The applicant advances reasons why an extension of time should be granted, based upon what he was advised concerning applying for leave to appeal and the failure of people to do what he understood they had undertaken to do.

I do not propose to deal with these technical matters but simply to look at the sentences imposed and the offences in respect to which they were imposed to determine whether, if an extension of time were granted, it is arguable that he might succeed on an application for leave to appeal and succeed in having those sentences reduced.

I will deal first with the matters in Court of Appeal 231 of 1998. These sentences were imposed on 4 February 1998. They were imposed with respect to offences committed on female children of the de facto partner of the applicant between 1 September 1984 and 12 July 1990.

There were two children. The elder child, L, was 11 years of age when the offences started, and the younger child, D, was 10 years of age.

With respect to the older child, there were six offences of indecent dealing, and in respect of the younger child, D, there were four offences. In respect of each of these offences, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

There were other offences of indecent dealing or treatment committed on the same two girls and in respect of each of these offences he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years.

The head sentence was imposed in respect of the maintenance of a sexual relationship with a child under 16 with a circumstance of aggravation, that circumstance being that he was in control of or stood in a position of authority over the child, and that resulted from the fact that he was regarded really by the child as a stepfather. That offence was committed with respect to the younger child, D. The sentence imposed for that offence was 10 years' imprisonment.

There were other counts relating to D; three counts of unlawful carnal knowledge with a circumstance of aggravation, the same circumstance of aggravation resulting from the relationship between him…

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. R

Details

AGLC: R v The Queen [1998] QCA 360
Case: [1998] QCA 360
Decision Date: 25 August 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. R involves the applicant seeking an extension of time to appeal against sentences imposed for the sexual abuse of young children under his control. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences committed on two sets of children between 1984-1990 and 1993-1995, involving indecent dealing, treatment, and maintaining sexual relationships with children under 16 years of age. The applicant argued that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and sought an extension of time to appeal against them.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The court examined the nature of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the appropriate range of sentencing for such serious crimes.

The court found that the sentences, while at the upper end of the range, were not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offences. The court noted the young age of the victims, the applicant's position of authority, and the serious psychological impact on the children. The court rejected the argument that the sentences were disproportionate, and concluded that extending the time for appeal would be pointless.

The court refused the application for an extension of time in both cases, upholding the sentences imposed.

Orders