R v Roelandts - [2002] QCA 254

[2002] QCA 254

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
JERRARD JA
WILSON J

CA No 63 of 2002

THE QUEEN

DENNIS SHANE ROELANDTS Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/07/2002

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant then 31 years of age pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of torture. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and declared to have been convicted of a serious violence offence. There was no challenge to that declaration made under section 161B paragraph 4 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, premised on the applicant's either having used serious violence against the respondent or having caused her serious harm.

The complainant was 30 years old at the time. She was the applicant's fiancée. She was five months pregnant with his child. The applicant subjected her to a lengthy experience in which he intentionally inflicted severe suffering upon her. It seems to have been motivated by concern as to her sexual fidelity towards him. On the day of the offence the applicant informed the complainant that their relationship was over. Having left the house the applicant later returned and challenged the complainant who asked to be left alone. The applicant questioned her about her past sexual history, punching her to the floor then dragging her back up by her hair. As she sought to leave, the applicant punched her in the back with his fists. The applicant ordered her to leave. As she went to do so he threw her to the floor, kneeing her. He again dragged her up by the hair. He told her to raise her arms. As she hesitated he counted menacingly, "one, two, three". She ran out of the house. He pursued her, pushing and hitting at her. She ran to the point of exhaustion. He then apologised and they went home together.

Apparently calmly when back inside the house he said to her, "I'm going to murder you, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but it will happen." The applicant commanded her to fetch the car keys on the basis they were going for a drive. The complainant said she did not wish to go and asked what he intended doing. The applicant ordered her to get into the car. As she again hesitated the applicant again menacingly counted, "one, two, three". At the point of "three" the applicant approached the complainant who, in fear, got into the car.

The applicant started the car. The complainant went to unlock the door and get out. She was screaming. The applicant restrained her by the throat. At his demand she fastened her seatbelt and he forcibly tightened it. The applicant drove the vehicle containing the complainant to an isolated spot along the Gateway Road towards the Gold Coast. The applicant again questioned the complainant about her sexual past. She pleaded with him saying, "Don't be angry with me. The baby and I need you."

He drove her to a dead-end track in remote bushland. The applicant turned off the engine of…

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 Roelandts

Details

AGLC: R v Roelandts [2002] QCA 254
Case: [2002] QCA 254
Decision Date: 23/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roelandts is an appeal against sentence, where the applicant, Dennis Shane Roelandts, sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him for the offence of torture. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the Chief Justice, Jerrar J, and Wilson J. The applicant had previously been convicted of torture and had been released from imprisonment under corrective services supervision. He then committed a similar offence against his fiancée, who was five months pregnant with his child.

The legal issues in the case were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether an appropriate sentence should not have exceeded three years' imprisonment with the 313 days of pre-sentence custody declared to be time already served, or alternatively two years imprisonment. The Court examined previous cases on torture to determine the appropriate level of punishment for the offence.

The Court held that the sentence of three years' imprisonment, which translated to at least four years allowing for time already served, was unsustainably lenient, indeed absurdly so. The Court considered the protracted brutality of the torture, the serious effect on the victim, and the shocking circumstance that the applicant committed this offence after having been convicted for another similar offence and so soon after release from the previous custody and supervision related to that offence. The Court held that the appropriate starting point was eight to 10 years reduced to six for the plea of guilty. The Court considered that this case should signal a need to strengthen the approach to sentencing for torture.

The Court granted leave to the applicant's counsel to seek instructions as to whether his client wished to proceed with the application for leave to appeal. When the Court reconvened, the counsel indicated that his client did not wish to proceed with the application and sought leave to withdraw it, which the Court granted. The only order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal by leave be withdrawn, but the Court recorded its reasoning for taking that course in relation to the application.

Orders