R v. Schneider; ex parte A-G(Qld) - [2008] QCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Schneider; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 25

PARTIES:

R
v
SCHNEIDER, Warren David
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 290 of 2007
DC No 1907 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Fryberg J
Joint reasons for judgment of McMurdo P and Holmes JA; separate reasons of Fryberg J dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, rape, indecent treatment of a child under 16 and indecent treatment of a child under 16 whilst in his care – where the respondent sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 12 months – where the offences were committed against students of the respondent at the school where he taught – where the respondent was sentenced in February 2006 for sexual offences committed during same period as the current offences to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after 5 months, and had been released – where the respondent had taken steps toward rehabilitation – whether sentence manifestly inadequate

Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld), s 36(1)

R v CX [2005] QCA 222; CA No 353 of 2004, 24 June 2005, distinguished
R v Irlam; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 235; CA No 157 and 173 of 2002, 26 June 2002, distinguished
R v MAM [2005] QCA 323; CA No 118 of 2005, 30 August 2005, distinguished
R v May [1999] QCA 127; CA No 450 of 1998, 14 April 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
G P Long SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
BCI Duells Lawyers for the respondent

URDO P and HOLMES JA: McMThe respondent pleaded guilty on 12 October 2007 to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation, three counts of rape, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and seven counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 whilst under his care. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment on the count of maintaining, and to lesser terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts. The judge ordered that he be eligible for parole on 12 October 2008, that is, after serving 12 months imprisonment. The judge also recommended that he undertake courses and counselling in relation to his sexual offending both during and after his imprisonment. The appellant, the Attorney-General of Queensland, appeals against that sentence contending that it is manifestly inadequate.

The respondent pleaded guilty at a very early stage. The committal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v. Schneider; ex parte A-G(Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QCA 25
Decision Date: 22 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v. Schneider, the Attorney-General for Queensland sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious sexual offences committed against students while he was their teacher. The respondent was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with parole eligibility after 12 months. The offences included maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, rape, and indecent treatment of children under 16. The court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the severity of the crimes and the respondent's prior convictions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences and the respondent's prior history of offending. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the possibility of rehabilitation and the appropriate response to the specific circumstances of the case. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the respondent's crimes and the impact on the victims.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the severity and nature of the offences, the respondent's prior criminal history, and the steps he had taken towards rehabilitation. The court determined that, while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court acknowledged the respondent's rehabilitation efforts and the potential for further rehabilitation, and found that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. Consequently, the court refused the appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against sentence refused

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 Schneider; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 25
PARTIES:	R v SCHNEIDER, Warren David (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 290 of 2007 DC No 1907 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 February 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Fryberg J Joint reasons for judgment of McMurdo P and Holmes JA; separate reasons of Fryberg J dissenting
ORDER:	Appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, rape, indecent treatment of a child under 16 and indecent treatment of a child under 16 whilst in his care – where the respondent sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 12 months – where the offences were committed against students of the respondent at the school where he taught – where the respondent was sentenced in February 2006 for sexual offences committed during same period as the current offences to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after 5 months, and had been released – where the respondent had taken steps toward rehabilitation – whether sentence manifestly inadequate Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld), s 36(1) R v CX [2005] QCA 222; CA No 353 of 2004, 24 June 2005, distinguished R v Irlam; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 235; CA No 157 and 173 of 2002, 26 June 2002, distinguished R v MAM [2005] QCA 323; CA No 118 of 2005, 30 August 2005, distinguished R v May [1999] QCA 127; CA No 450 of 1998, 14 April 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant G P Long SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant BCI Duells Lawyers for the respondent