R v Raz; Ex parte - [2018] QCA 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v RAZ; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 178

PARTIES:

R
v
RAZ
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 306 of 2017
DC No 2596 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 November 2017 (Muir DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   The sentence of nine years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment be set aside.

3.   The respondent be sentenced to 11 years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment.

4.   The conviction on count 1 of the indictment be declared a serious violent offence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent was convicted of 18 sexual offences committed against his step-grandson over the course of a period of 12 years – where the Crown submitted for a head sentence of between 10 and 12 years imprisonment at first instance – where defence counsel at first instance submitted that a head sentence of eight years imprisonment was appropriate – where all sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and the respondent was sentenced to a head sentence of nine years on the first count, that of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 – where the appellant complained of four errors on the part of the learned sentencing judge – where the period of offending was a very important factor to be considered – where the respondent’s position as a magistrate was a relevant factor as it put him in a special position to fully appreciate the deleterious effects of sexual offences upon children – where the combination of the complainant’s age, the length of the offending and knowledge of the effects of the offending on the complainant made this an exceptional case – whether the sentence imposed at first instance was so out of range as to warrant intervention

Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, applied
R v BAY (2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, discussed
R v BCA[2011] QCA 278, discussed
R v PAK[2010] QCA 187, discussed

COUNSEL:

T A Fuller QC for the appellant
A J Edwards for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
A W Bale & Son Solicitors for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The respondent was convicted of 18 counts of sexual offences that he committed against his step-grandson over the course of 12 years. On 21 November 2017 he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment between two years and nine years. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The Attorney-General now appeals against the sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly…

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 Raz; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Raz; Ex parte [2018] QCA 178
Case: [2018] QCA 178
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raz involved the respondent, who was convicted of 18 sexual offences committed against his step-grandson over a period of 12 years. The respondent, who held the position of a magistrate, was initially sentenced to a head sentence of nine years imprisonment on the first count, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The appeal against this sentence was based on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The Crown had argued for a head sentence of between 10 and 12 years imprisonment, while the defence counsel had suggested a sentence of eight years imprisonment was appropriate. The appeal raised questions about whether the original sentence was so out of range as to warrant judicial intervention.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed at first instance was so disproportionate as to justify altering it. The court needed to consider the severity and nature of the crimes, the length of the offending period, the age of the complainant, and the respondent’s position as a magistrate. The appeal hinged on whether the original sentence of nine years was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentence imposed warranted appellate intervention. The court also needed to address the impact of the respondent’s position as a magistrate, which placed him in a unique position to understand the detrimental effects of sexual offences on children.

The court determined that the sentence imposed at first instance was indeed so out of range as to warrant intervention. The combination of the complainant’s age, the duration of the offending, and the respondent’s knowledge of the effects of the offending on the complainant made this an exceptional case. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and re-sentenced the respondent to 11 years imprisonment on the first count, declaring it a serious violent offence. This decision underscores the importance of appropriate sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims and offenders in positions of trust.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The sentence of nine years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment be set aside.

3. The respondent be sentenced to 11 years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment.

4. The conviction on count 1 of the indictment be declared a serious violent offence.

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 RAZ; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 178
PARTIES:	R v RAZ (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 306 of 2017 DC No 2596 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 November 2017 (Muir DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Boddice J
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. The sentence of nine years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment be set aside. 3. The respondent be sentenced to 11 years imprisonment on count 1 of the indictment. 4. The conviction on count 1 of the indictment be declared a serious violent offence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent was convicted of 18 sexual offences committed against his step-grandson over the course of a period of 12 years – where the Crown submitted for a head sentence of between 10 and 12 years imprisonment at first instance – where defence counsel at first instance submitted that a head sentence of eight years imprisonment was appropriate – where all sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and the respondent was sentenced to a head sentence of nine years on the first count, that of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 – where the appellant complained of four errors on the part of the learned sentencing judge – where the period of offending was a very important factor to be considered – where the respondent’s position as a magistrate was a relevant factor as it put him in a special position to fully appreciate the deleterious effects of sexual offences upon children – where the combination of the complainant’s age, the length of the offending and knowledge of the effects of the offending on the complainant made this an exceptional case – whether the sentence imposed at first instance was so out of range as to warrant intervention Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, applied R v BAY (2005) 157 A Crim R 309; [2005] QCA 427, discussed R v BCA[2011] QCA 278, discussed R v PAK[2010] QCA 187, discussed
COUNSEL:	T A Fuller QC for the appellant A J Edwards for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant A W Bale & Son Solicitors for the respondent