SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Robinson [2007] QCA 99
PARTIES:
R
v
ROBINSON, Allan Norman
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 301 of 2006
DC No 444 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
30 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 March 2007
JUDGES:
Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, and appeal allowed
3. The sentences of life imprisonment be set aside and, instead, the appellant be sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrentlyCATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant convicted of two counts of rape and one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 - where audio recordings admitted into evidence - whether sufficient warning given in relation to voice identification - whether jury should have been provided with a transcript of the audio recordings - whether appropriate directions given to jury as to the use which they could make of the appellant's evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - where appellant sentenced to life imprisonment - where learned sentencing judge concluded appellant was likely to commit further offences - whether sentence manifestly excessive
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(6)Bulejcik v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 375, applied
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, applied
R v H [2001] QCA 167, CA No 40 of 2001, 1 May 2001, considered
R v Knijff (1993) 69 A Crim R 236, considered
R v Luke [1987] CA 9; CA No 342 of 1986, 4 March 1987, applied
R v Mercer (1993) 67 A Crim R 91, distinguished
R v Zheng (1995) 83 A Crim R 572, distinguishedCOUNSEL:
P E Smith for the appellant
D R MacKenzie for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: I agree with all that is said by Keane JA in his reasons, and with the orders he has proposed.
KEANE JA: On 9 October 2006, the appellant was convicted after a trial by jury in the District Court at Cairns of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years of age and two counts of rape. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of each offence.
The…
Continue reading R v Robinson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Robinson [2007] QCA 99
- Case
- [2007] QCA 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's failure to provide adequate warnings and directions about the use of audio evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court had to consider if the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's likelihood of reoffending. The court meticulously reviewed the legal precedents and statutory provisions relevant to these issues, including the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) and the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court also examined prior cases such as Bulejcik v The Queen, Domican v The Queen, and R v Knijff, among others, to contextualise the current appeal within the established legal framework.
The court found that while there were some deficiencies in the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the audio evidence, these did not amount to a miscarriage of justice that would warrant a new trial. However, the court determined that the sentence of life imprisonment was manifestly excessive, especially when considering the appellant's age and the possibility of rehabilitation. By applying the principles from Bulejcik v The Queen and Domican v The Queen, the court concluded that the severity of the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal, setting aside the life sentence in favour of 18 years imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, and appeal allowed
3. The sentences of life imprisonment be set aside and, instead, the appellant be sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrently
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.