R v G [2002] QCA 381

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-09-25|Before: Helman J, Jersey CJ, Jones J

The applicant complains that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive; and, as might have been expected, the focus of the argument on his behalf was upon the sentence of imprisonment for sixteen years. In sentencing the applicant, the learned sentencing judge said this:

"The relevant features of the conduct as a whole appear to me to be these. Firstly, the offences involve a total of nine different complainants, six of whom are female and three of whom are male; two, the conduct occurred over a period span of five and a half years. The offences charged in indictment 1 were committed in October of 1999. Those offences concern four complainants aged between 11 years and 13 years. The offences in indictment number 2 involve two complainants.

It is a circumstance of aggravation that some of the offences were actually committed while you were on bail for other re-offences. The conduct itself involved the commission of very serious offences. The offences include a charge of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 that was marked by offences of unlawful carnal knowledge of the child.

That is the offence that was continued over a period of about three years and three months. The sexual offences committed in indictment number 3 involved at times the use of force on the boys to enable you to either have oral sex with them or force them to have oral sex with you.

Generally speaking, the children at the time of the offences were in your care and so involved a breach of trust. Some of the children were the natural children of de facto partners that you had from time to time. The offences as a whole are marked by a lack of any human consideration for any of the complainant children. You used all of the children for your own sexual gratification. The offences are aggravated by the effect of your offences on the victims of the offences. You do have a conviction for a past sexual offence, although that was committed when you were 29, back in the late 1970s.

You have not displayed any remorse that I can see for having committed the offences. In relation to count 1, you went to trial. In relation to indictment number 1 you went to trial. In relation to indictments number 2 and 3, although you have ultimately pleaded guilty, I was told that full committals were held with cross-examination of the various complainants relating to those charges. Although your pleas of guilty may be recognised within the sentence, I do not equate the pleas as resulting from any feelings of remorse on your part."

"The case, as I understand it, is one in which a declaration that some of the offences be declared serious violent offences could be made. However, some of the offences, indeed, the bulk of them, occurred before that legislation came into effect. On balance, I agree with the Prosecutor that the better course is to settle on an appropriate overall sentence, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances of mitigation, including your pleas of guilty to indictments 2 and 3."

Those remarks set out the gravity of the offences which were the subject of the sentences - not only the gravity of the offences, but the number of offences, and the devastating effect that they have had upon the young complainants.

It is said on behalf of the applicant that the sentence of sixteen years' imprisonment should be reduced to somewhere in the range of imprisonment for twelve to fifteen years, and it is suggested that the lower end of that range is the appropriate one.

When the comparable cases to which we have been referred are considered, however, it can be noted that when offences of this type - particularly offences so numerous and so devastating in their effect on children - have been before the Courts on previous occasions, sentences of up to imprisonment for seventeen years have been imposed. It would seem then quite clear that the sentence imposed in this case for maintaining a sexual relationship was within the accepted range of a proper sentencing discretion, and bearing in mind the features emphasized by the learned sentencing judge, I am not persuaded that it has been demonstrated that the intervention of this Court is called for. I should therefore refuse the application.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)