R v SAU - [2006] QCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SAU [2006] QCA 192

PARTIES:

R
v
SAU
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 69 of 2006
DC No 96 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

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 REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after three years for maintaining a sexual relationship with aggravating circumstance of incestuous carnal knowledge – where complainant is applicant’s daughter – where she was 14 when applicant’s offending began – whether sentence was

manifestly excessive

R v BAY [2005] QCA 427; CA No 110 of 2005, 18 November 2005, considered
R v H [2003] QCA 392; CA No 171 of 2003, 12 September 2003, considered
R v L [2002] QCA 268; CA No 80 of 2002, 26 July 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a recommendation for eligibility for parole after three years. That sentence was imposed on him in respect of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship over a period between 1st April 1999 and 27 March 2001 with a circumstance of aggravation, that being incestuous carnal knowledge.

The complainant was 14 when the period of offending began and turned 16 shortly after its end date. The applicant's conduct in respect of her included showing her pornographic movies, touching her vaginal area and masturbating her and himself, using a vibrator on her, making her perform fellatio on him and ultimately engaging in regular penetrative intercourse with her over a period of about 12 months.

In January 2003 the complainant disclosed to her mother what had happened. In the ensuing police investigation the applicant initially denied any wrongdoing but ended by acknowledging the truth of most of what the complainant had said. However, despite that admission the complainant was required to give evidence at a committal hearing and the matter was sent to trial.

The applicant successfully applied for the exclusion of his admission but after a ruling by this Court on an Attorney-General's reference, that the applicant's statements were not rendered inadmissible by the way he was questioned, the matter was returned to the District Court where further argument took place and rulings were made. On the…

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 SAU

Details

AGLC: R v SAU [2006] QCA 192
Case: [2006] QCA 192
Decision Date: 5 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v SAU, the applicant appealed against his sentence for maintaining a sexual relationship with his daughter, who was 14 years old when the offending began. The applicant was sentenced to eight years in prison with a recommendation for parole after three years. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the aggravating circumstances of incestuous carnal knowledge. The appeal hinged on the severity and proportionality of the sentence, considering the specific nature of the crime and its impact on the victim.

The legal issues before the court included the principles governing the imposition of sentences for sexual offences, particularly those involving incest, and whether the sentence was excessively lenient or harsh. The court considered the severity of the crime, the age of the victim, and the relationship between the offender and the victim. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the sentence aligned with the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, given the unique circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentence was appropriate and balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. It noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the harm caused to the victim. The court emphasised that the relationship between the offender and the victim, coupled with the nature of the offence, warranted a significant custodial term. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld, reflecting the court’s view that the sentence was neither excessively lenient nor harsh.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v SAU [2006] QCA 192
PARTIES:	R v SAU (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 69 of 2006 DC No 96 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	5 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	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 REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after three years for maintaining a sexual relationship with aggravating circumstance of incestuous carnal knowledge – where complainant is applicant’s daughter – where she was 14 when applicant’s offending began – whether sentence was manifestly excessive R v BAY [2005] QCA 427; CA No 110 of 2005, 18 November 2005, considered R v H [2003] QCA 392; CA No 171 of 2003, 12 September 2003, considered R v L [2002] QCA 268; CA No 80 of 2002, 26 July 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent