THE QUEEN v LESLIE (a pseudonym) - [2021] QCA 85

[2021] QCA 85

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
MULLINS JA
DAVIS J

CA No 172 of 2020
DC No 448 of 2019

THE QUEEN

LESLIE (a pseudonym) Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 4 MAY 2021

JUDGMENT

DAVIS J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her in the District Court at Beenleigh on 30 July 2020. Effective sentences of nine years imprisonment with parole eligibility on 30 July 2024, being four years into the sentence, were imposed in relation to seven counts of rape, being domestic violence offences, three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who is a lineal descendent, which are also domestic violence offences, and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who is a lineal descendant. That count was also a domestic violence offence. It is unnecessary to descend into a detailed analysis of the offending. A short summary will suffice.
The applicant, by her former husband, had six children. She lived with her husband and the children in Beaudesert. There are four daughters and two sons. In September of 2016, two of the applicant’s daughters disclosed to teachers at their school that their father had been sexually abusing them. Other disclosures were later made.
Disclosures were made by two of the daughters implicating the applicant. The applicant’s husband had non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the two girls and otherwise sexually assaulted them while the applicant was present. The offending occurred over a period of about four years. The girls were aged between 10 and 13 at the time of the offending.
The applicant was a party to the offending pursuant to s 7 of the Code. Her presence was encouragement and therefore, aiding of her husband.[1] The applicant aided her husband in other ways. On one occasion she accompanied one of the girls into the bathroom where her husband was waiting. When the applicant’s husband told the applicant and her daughter to undress, the applicant did so. That was count 5. On another occasion, the applicant brought one of her daughters to her husband obviously knowing his intentions. Afterwards, she took the complainant for a shower at her husband’s direction. That was count 6. On another occasion, she followed her husband’s direction to bring one of the daughters to him (count 7) and closed the bedroom door when directed.
[1]See R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30.
Unsurprisingly, the effect upon the complainants has been severe.
On the present application, the applicant points to the fact that she lived in fear of her husband and was the subject of violence at his hands. However, she pleaded guilty and did not raise the exculpation afforded by s 31 of the Code, which is compulsion, in defence of the charges. Obviously, she could not. The offending of her husband to which she was a party was repetitive and occurred over a lengthy period. Any threats to her were not proximate enough to the offending to give her an excuse.
The…

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 THE QUEEN v LESLIE (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Leslie (a pseudonym) [2021] QCA 85
Case: [2021] QCA 85
Decision Date: 4 MAY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application by Leslie for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her by the District Court. Leslie was convicted of multiple counts of rape and indecent treatment of children, all of which were domestic violence offences. Leslie was sentenced to a total of nine years imprisonment, with parole eligibility set at four years into the sentence. The appeal centred around the severity of the sentence and whether it was excessive or manifestly unjust.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the District Court had erred in its sentencing of Leslie. The Court needed to consider if the sentence was so disproportionate as to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. In evaluating this, the Court examined the gravity of the offences, the mitigating circumstances, and whether the District Court had properly exercised its discretion in sentencing.

The Court found that the District Court had accurately assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The Court acknowledged that Leslie had been a party to the offending, which was severe and occurred over a lengthy period. However, the Court also considered the mitigating circumstances, including Leslie's guilty plea and the fact that she had been a victim of domestic violence herself. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the nature of the crimes and did not constitute an error warranting an appeal.

The Court dismissed Leslie's application for leave to appeal, affirming the District Court's sentence as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment, finding no basis for granting leave to appeal.

Orders