R v Svensson; ex parte

[2002] QCA 472

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Svensson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 472

PARTIES:

R
v
SVENSSON, Kenneth Roy
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 221 of 2002
DC No 920 of 2002
DC No 921 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

5 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P, and Davies JA
Separate reasons for judgment of the members of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Allow the appeal and vary the sentences imposed in the District Court as follows:

(a) on the first indictment in respect of counts one and two, order that the imprisonment be suspended after 12 months for three years;

(b) on the first indictment, in respect of counts three and four, order that the imprisonment be suspended after 12 months for four years;

(c)   on the second indictment, order that the imprisonment of three years be suspended after 12 months for three years.

2.  Order that a warrant issue for the arrest of the respondent to lie in the Registry until 4 pm, 12 November 2002, pending any necessary execution

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where the Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent, who, when in his 40’s and 50’s, sexually abused boys aged 15, 16 and 17 and a half years – where sentence submitted by the Prosecutor was for 2 ½ to 3 ½ years but where trial Judge wholly suspended the sentence because of the accused’s health problems

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PURPOSE OF SENTENCE – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where, given the nature of the offending, the respondent’s physical condition should not exclude actual imprisonment – where a sex offender substantially removed in age from his young victim cannot escape condign punishment by suggesting the victim was at or close to an “age of consent”

R v Gilles [2002] 1 Qd R 404, considered
R v Irlam; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 235, CA No 157 of 2002, CA No 173 of 2002, 28 June 2002, followed

COUNSEL:

T Martin SC for the respondent
M J Copley for the appellant

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton for the respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The Honourable the Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent, who, when in his 40s and 50s, sexually abused boys aged respectively 15 years, 16 years and 17 and a half years.

It is that substantial age discrepancy which I believe assumes considerable significance in this case.  The 15 year old left school to accept employment in the respondent's…