R v Sea - [2023] QCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SEA [2023] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
SEA
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 290 of 2021
SC No 114 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 7 October 2021 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 23 March 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 31 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2023

JUDGES:

Dalton JA and Boddice AJA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 23 March 2023

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, 58 counts of rape, eight counts of attempted rape, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, 28 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care, lineal descendant, 20 counts of making child exploitation material and 26 counts of common assault – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the maintaining count and was convicted but not further punished in respect of the remaining counts – where the complainant was the applicant’s daughter – where the sentencing judge had express regard to the applicant’s early plea of guilty, prejudicial upbringing and lack of prior criminal history – where the sentencing judge categorised the offending as the most serious form of offending – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited
R v Mahony & Shenfield [2012] QCA 366, considered
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
C M Cook for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DALTON JA: The applicant was 37 to 38 years old at the time of the offending dealt with by the primary judge. She was 40 at the time of sentence. She had no criminal history. She pleaded guilty to 234 counts of sexual offending against children, mostly her own daughter, at a time when that child was four to five years old. Some counts were also against a seven year old child of whom her co‑offender was the father. These counts against her daughter were the particulars of a maintaining count in respect of her daughter.
The applicant came from a broken home and says her father was violent towards her and her sister. She left school in Grade 12 due to becoming pregnant. She began taking drugs in high school. She used amphetamines from age 17, along with heavy alcohol use. Although she had a qualification in aged care administration and had done work in that area, she has spent most of her life unemployed.…

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 Sea

Details

AGLC: R v Sea [2023] QCA 56
Case: [2023] QCA 56
Decision Date: 31 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sea involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant for various offences including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, multiple counts of rape, indecent treatment, and making child exploitation material. The court had to decide whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the maintaining count was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant, who pleaded guilty to the charges, committed these heinous crimes against her own daughter. The sentencing judge considered the applicant's early plea of guilty, her prejudicial upbringing, and lack of prior criminal history but ultimately categorised the offending as the most serious form of offending.

The legal issues revolved around whether the sentence of life imprisonment was excessive given the mitigating factors and the nature of the crimes. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, but the court had to weigh the severity of the crimes against the mitigating factors. The court found that the applicant's crimes were of an extreme and persistent nature, involving a gross breach of trust and depravity against her own daughter. Despite the mitigating factors, the court concluded that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the nature of the crimes.

The court's reasoning was that the severity of the crimes, the breach of trust, and the vulnerability of the victim warranted a severe sentence. The early plea of guilty and lack of prior criminal history were considered, but they did not outweigh the egregious nature of the crimes. The sentencing judge's categorisation of the offending as the most serious form of offending was deemed appropriate, and the sentence did not lead to an error. The difference in the applicant's offending compared to others was acknowledged by allowing an earlier parole eligibility date. The sentence of life imprisonment was deemed neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.

The final orders of the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed was held to be not manifestly excessive, and the applicant's appeal was refused. The judges concurred with the decision to dismiss the appeal and the reasons provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 23 March 2023

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

The sentence of life imprisonment was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.Conclusion The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. BRADLEY J: I joined in the order refusing leave to appeal. I concur with the reasons recorded by my colleagues.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The sentencing judge found that whilst the applicant’s offending involved a lesser number of offences, over a shorter period of time, and a lesser number of complainants, than SN, the level and type of abuse committed by the applicant, directly against her own daughter, was of such a high level that it was properly to be characterised as being conduct in the most serious form of offending.Consideration A consideration of the applicant’s offending supports a conclusion that a sentence of life imprisonment for the maintaining count fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The applicant’s offending involved extreme and persistent depravity, committed against her own daughter, when only four and five years of age. The conduct involved the grossest form of breach of trust by a parent. The conduct persisted despite obvious pain and pleas for it to stop. The conduct was recorded, and the child was made to make statements suggestive of enjoyment. Whilst it is undesirable to categorise offending as the most serious, as there is always the possibility of others committing even worse offending, the sentencing judge’s categorisation did not lead to error in the present case. The applicant’s offending involved criminality of such depravity, committed in circumstances of such an egregious breach of trust against a helpless child, as to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment, notwithstanding early pleas of guilty and a lack of prior criminal history. Further, the difference in the applicant’s offending to that of SN was appropriately acknowledged by the allowance for an earlier parole eligibility date in the applicant’s case. The sentence of life imprisonment was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.Conclusion The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. BRADLEY J: I joined in the order refusing leave to appeal. I concur with the reasons recorded by my colleagues.

CITATION:	R v SEA [2023] QCA 56
PARTIES:	R v SEA (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 290 of 2021 SC No 114 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 7 October 2021 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 23 March 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 31 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 March 2023
JUDGES:	Dalton JA and Boddice AJA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 23 March 2023 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, 58 counts of rape, eight counts of attempted rape, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, 28 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care, lineal descendant, 20 counts of making child exploitation material and 26 counts of common assault – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the maintaining count and was convicted but not further punished in respect of the remaining counts – where the complainant was the applicant’s daughter – where the sentencing judge had express regard to the applicant’s early plea of guilty, prejudicial upbringing and lack of prior criminal history – where the sentencing judge categorised the offending as the most serious form of offending – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Mahony & Shenfield [2012] QCA 366, considered Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf C M Cook for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent