Jerrard JA, Atkinson and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:
1. Allow the application for leave to appeal;
2. Allow the appeal;
3. Vary the order below by ordering that all sentences imposed on 11 February 2004 be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence of imprisonment the applicant was then serving
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant convicted after a trial of a substantial number of sexual offences against three of his step daughters – where applicant given a head sentence of 14 years imprisonment – where that sentence was ordered to be served cumulatively on a sentence of 4 years imposed with respect to sexual offences committed against a fourth step daughter to which the applicant had pleaded guilty – where no relevant mitigating factors – whether sentence manifestly excessive
[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 SAG
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v SAG [2004] QCA 286
Case
[2004] QCA 286
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, R, was convicted of a series of sexual offences against three of his step-daughters. The court sentenced him to a head sentence of 14 years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with a 4-year sentence for sexual offences against a fourth step-daughter, to which R had pleaded guilty. R sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The application was before the court for determination.
The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. R argued that there were no mitigating factors and that the sentence was unduly harsh. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for sexual offences. The court also needed to evaluate whether the cumulative nature of the sentences was justified and if they were proportionate to the crimes committed.
The court allowed the application for leave to appeal and subsequently allowed the appeal. The court found that the cumulative nature of the sentences was not justified given the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the sentences were manifestly excessive and ordered that all sentences imposed be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence of imprisonment R was already serving.
The final orders of the court were to allow the application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and vary the order by ordering that all sentences imposed on 11 February 2004 be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence of imprisonment R was then serving.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Allow the application for leave to appeal;
2. Allow the appeal;
3. Vary the order below by ordering that all sentences imposed on 11 February 2004 be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence of imprisonment the applicant was then serving