R v Wam - [2011] QCA 316

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WAM [2011] QCA 316

PARTIES:

R
v
WAM
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 113 of 2011
DC No 466 of 2011
DC No 1443 of 2010
DC No 1444 of 2010
DC No 1453 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 15 sexual offences contained in four indictments against his three half-sisters and cousin – where the applicant was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with a circumstance of aggravation and lesser concurrent sentences on the remaining offences – where the applicant contended that the sentence was outside the range for a youthful offender without a relevant criminal history – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v BBY [2011] QCA 69, considered
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v PAN [2011] QCA 192, cited
R v P; ex parte A-G [2001] QCA 188, cited
R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered
R v ZA; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 249, considered

COUNSEL:

H C Fong for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant was charged with 15 sexual offences contained in four indictments. On the morning of 9 May 2011 prior to the commencement of the trial of the indictment concerning his half sister, N, he pleaded guilty to that indictment and to another indictment concerning his half sister, M, which was listed for trial later in May. He had already pleaded guilty to an indictment concerning his half sister, K, and another indictment concerning his cousin, C. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with N with a circumstance of aggravation (count 6); and to eight years imprisonment on the remaining five rape counts (counts 1 to 5) and two incest counts (counts 7 and 8). On the indictment concerning K, he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for the single count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a circumstance of aggravation. On the indictment concerning M, he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on four counts of rape (counts 1, 2, 4 and 5) and two years imprisonment on the count of indecent dealing (count 3). On the indictment concerning C, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the single…

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 Wam

Details

AGLC: R v Wam [2011] QCA 316
Case: [2011] QCA 316
Decision Date: 8 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wam, the applicant appealed against his sentence following his guilty plea to 15 sexual offences against three half-sisters and a cousin. The applicant's sentence included 11 years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with a circumstance of aggravation, and concurrent lesser sentences for the remaining offences. The applicant's appeal was grounded on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and outside the range appropriate for a youthful offender with no relevant criminal history.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive, given his age and lack of criminal history. The court was required to consider whether the sentence departed significantly from the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences, and whether the circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court thoroughly examined the principles governing sentencing for sexual offences, noting that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and extent of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's circumstances, and thus the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court's decision affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge and recognised the importance of maintaining a consistent approach to sentencing for serious sexual offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to 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 WAM [2011] QCA 316
PARTIES:	R v WAM (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 113 of 2011 DC No 466 of 2011 DC No 1443 of 2010 DC No 1444 of 2010 DC No 1453 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 October 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 15 sexual offences contained in four indictments against his three half-sisters and cousin – where the applicant was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with a circumstance of aggravation and lesser concurrent sentences on the remaining offences – where the applicant contended that the sentence was outside the range for a youthful offender without a relevant criminal history – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v BBY [2011] QCA 69, considered R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v PAN [2011] QCA 192, cited R v P; ex parte A-G [2001] QCA 188, cited R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301; [2004] QCA 286, considered R v ZA; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 249, considered
COUNSEL:	H C Fong for the applicant R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent