SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v SAH [2004] QCA 329
PARTIES:
R
v
SAH
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 184 of 2004
DC No 174 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
10 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 September 2004
JUDGES:
McPherson and Williams JJA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Grant leave to appeal
2. Allow the appeal
3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance, and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of three years to be suspended after serving 12 months with an operational period of three years
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted of rape – where applicant inserted finger into anus of three year old boy who was in his care – where sentenced to five years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after 18 months – where applicant has criminal history – where applicant 19 years old when offence was committed – where plea of guilty – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
R v C; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 510; CA No 328 of 2003, 13 November 2003, cited
R v K [2003] QCA 521; CA No 290 of 2003, 20 November 2003, cited
R v M [2003] QCA 443; CA No 114 of 2003 and CA No 276 of 2003, 17 October 2003, referred to
R v Richardson [2000] QCA 166; CA No 18 of 2000, 8 May 2000, citedCOUNSEL:
K M McGinness for the applicant
R G Martin for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: I agree, but I confess without marked enthusiasm, in the reasons and the orders proposed by Williams JA. The appeal should be allowed to the extent stated by his Honour in those reasons.
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of five years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after 18 months following on his plea of guilty to a count of rape.
On a date unknown between 30 June and 11 August 2002 the applicant inserted a finger or fingers into the anus of a three year old boy who was then in his care. The applicant was the partner at the time of the boy’s mother. She had been admitted to hospital and the applicant had care of the boy and his half sister during that period. In consequence the applicant was in a position of trust with respect to the particularly young boy.
The boy complained to his mother during a visit to the hospital that “[SAH] naughty, [SAH] hurt me”. Later the…
Continue reading R v SAH
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v SAH [2004] QCA 329
- Case
- [2004] QCA 329
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure that the punishment reflects the seriousness of the offence, and to prevent the offender from reoffending. The court also considered the particular circumstances of the offender, including his age, criminal history, and the fact that he had pleaded guilty. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of three years to be suspended after serving 12 months with an operational period of three years.
The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because it did not reflect the particular circumstances of the offender. The court found that the applicant's age at the time of the offence, his criminal history, and his plea of guilty, were all factors that should have been taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence, and did not adequately reflect the need to prevent the offender from reoffending. The court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed at first instance, and ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of three years to be suspended after serving 12 months with an operational period of three years.
The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed at first instance, and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of three years to be suspended after serving 12 months with an operational period of three years.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to appeal
2. Allow the appeal
3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance, and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of three years to be suspended after serving 12 months with an operational period of three years
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.