R v Wright - [1996] QCA 104

[1996] QCA 104

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 10 of 1996.

Brisbane

BeforeMcPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
Ambrose J.

[R v. Wright]

THE QUEEN

LEO DANIEL WRIGHT

(Applicant)

Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Ambrose J.

Judgment delivered 19/04/96

Separate reasons for judgment by Pincus J.A. & McPherson J.A. concurring in the result; separate dissenting reasons for judgment by Ambrose J.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS CRIMINAL LAW - INDECENT DEALING - SENTENCE -Catholic priest indecently dealt with several complainants - Breach of trust - Pleaded guilty - 3 years imprisonment imposed with no recommendation for early parole - Applicant seeking an early recommendation for parole.
R. v. Pham (CA 435 of 1995); R. v. S (CA 506 of 1995); R. v. S (CA 124 of 1995; CA 223 of 1995); and R. v. Collins (CA 29 of 1993).

Counsel:A. Glynn for the applicant
M. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent

Solicitors:Robertson O'Gorman for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 21 March 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered the 19th day of April 1996

The applicant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane after pleading guilty to an indictment charging 17 counts of indecency with children. There were 13 counts of indecent treatment of girls under the age of 12; four more in which the girl was under 16; three counts of gross indecency with a boy under 16; and another (count 17) of indecent assault on a young Aboriginal woman aged about 18. The first sixteen offences were committed during the period from January 1969 to December 1970, at a time when the maximum penalty for the offence was imprisonment for 5 years. The last offence (count 17) was committed between January and July 1977.
The overall sentence imposed was imprisonment for 3 years. The application before this Court for leave to appeal against sentence is based principally on failure to make a recommendation for early parole in favour of the applicant.
The circumstances of the offence are that, throughout the period from January 1968 to December 1970, the applicant was the assistant parish priest at the Catholic Church at Manly. At the time of the last offence in 1977, he was stationed at West End, where he was full-time chaplain to the Aboriginal community of Brisbane. The presbytery where he lived at Manly was next door to the home of the first two complainant girls, who were sisters. Their parents were parishioners and friends of the applicant, who was invited to their house from time to time. Opportunities for committing the offences arose when the complainants visited the presbytery on errands or to do minor chores related to parish affairs; when the applicant drove one of them in his car; or, in another instance, at the complainant's home. Another incident charged (count 7) was alleged to have taken place in church during confessional; but, while pleading guilty to it, the applicant…

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 Wright

Details

AGLC: R v Wright [1996] QCA 104
Case: [1996] QCA 104
Decision Date: 19/04/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wright, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, a Catholic priest who had been convicted of multiple counts of indecent dealing with children and an indecent assault on an 18-year-old woman. The applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment without a recommendation for early parole. The primary issue before the Court was whether the trial judge should have recommended early parole eligibility. The majority of the Court, Pincus JA and McPherson JA, held that the sentence was appropriate and that the application should be dismissed. Ambrose JA dissented, holding that a recommendation for early parole eligibility should have been made.

The majority found that the sentence of three years imprisonment was within the appropriate range, taking into account the number and nature of the offences, the ages of the victims, and the abuse of trust by the applicant in his position as a priest. The lasting impact on the victims, particularly the four female complainants, was considered in mitigation but did not warrant a lighter sentence. The majority noted that the applicant's remorse, guilty plea, and efforts at rehabilitation were taken into account by the trial judge. The majority concluded that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Ambrose JA disagreed, finding that the sentence was justified but that a recommendation for early parole eligibility should have been made. Ambrose JA emphasized the applicant's background, including sexual abuse in his childhood, lack of sexual education, and difficulties adjusting to his role as a priest. Ambrose JA also noted the applicant's participation in a treatment program and his low risk of reoffending. Ambrose JA concluded that a recommendation for early parole eligibility would assist in the applicant's rehabilitation without diminishing the deterrent effect of the sentence.

Orders