R v Reading; ex parte - [2002] QCA 278

[2002] QCA 278

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA

CA No 112 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ROY WILLIAM READING Respondent

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/07/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: Mr Justice McPherson will deliver his reasons

first.

McPHERSON JA: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against the inadequacy of sentences imposed in the District Court. The respondent was convicted on pleas of guilty to a total of 19 counts of sexual offences contrary to the Criminal Code, section 210(1)(b) (unlawfully procuring a child under 16 years to commit an indecent act) and section 229B of the Code (maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under the age of 16 years).

There were in all 16 counts of procuring a child to commit an indecent act involving girls under 16 years and three counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with girls under that age. Altogether five different girls were involved, one of them aged only 10, another 11, the third 12, fourth 13 and the fifth 14 years old.

The learned sentencing Judge imposed an effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment in respect of the maintaining charges and 12 months' imprisonment in respect of each of the indecent acts. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, but her Honour recommended that the respondent be considered for parole after he had served 12 months of the concurrent sentences.

The circumstances of the offences can be briefly summarised as follows. They occurred over a four to five month period between June and December 2001. The offences were committed in the bedroom and the bathroom of the unit in which the respondent resided in Cairns. The girls were paid by him to masturbate him, doing so either individually or in a group of several of them at a time. He later asked the girls to come individually so that it would not cost him so much money. He paid them some $20 each in respect of their masturbating him and doing other acts of this kind.

The 11 year old would telephone him to see if he was home and, if he was, the girls would go to his unit and head straight for the bedroom or the bathroom and engage in this conduct with him. They came twice or perhaps three times a week for the purpose of earning money in this way. On occasions the offence took place in the bathroom with him in the shower. They soaped him and played with his testicles, as well as masturbating him, on occasions putting fingers in his anus in order to stimulate an ejaculation.

The offences came to light through an interview with one of the girls by the Juvenile Aid Bureau, in which she described her and the others' conduct in going to the respondent's home and masturbating him in return for money. The respondent did not go to the police station voluntarily but was arrested. He participated in an interview…

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 Reading; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Reading; ex parte [2002] QCA 278
Case: [2002] QCA 278
Decision Date: 31/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Reading, the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentences imposed by the District Court on Roy William Reading, who was convicted on 19 counts of sexual offences. The respondent had been found guilty of procuring a child under 16 years to commit an indecent act and maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years. The offences involved five girls aged between 10 and 14 years, and occurred over a four to five-month period between June and December 2001. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of 3 years for maintaining charges and 12 months for each indecent act, to be served concurrently, with a recommendation for parole after 12 months.

The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were adequate in light of the severity and nature of the offences committed by the respondent. The Attorney-General argued that the sentences were inadequate and sought to have them increased. The Court of Appeal was required to assess the appropriateness of the sentences, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and the principles of sentencing for such crimes.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed by the District Court were inadequate. The respondent's conduct in paying young girls for performing sexual acts and introducing them to the idea of earning money for sexual services was considered a corrupting form of conduct that society could not condone. The Court compared the present case with The Queen v. Bennetto, where the offender was sentenced to six years, with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years, for similar offences. The Court noted that the maximum sentencing terms for the offences in the present case had doubled since the time of Bennetto, and that the District Court may have been misled by incorrect information regarding the maximum sentencing terms. As a result, the Court increased the sentences on counts 5, 10 and 15 from 3 years to 5 years' imprisonment and altered the parole recommendation so that it would take effect only after the respondent had served two years of the sentence imposed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to allow the appeal by varying the sentence on counts 5, 10 and 15 to 5 years in place of 3 years, and altering the parole recommendation to take effect when the respondent had served two years of the sentence imposed. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders