//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2002] QCA 143
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2002-04-19
Murdo P, Pherson JA, Helman J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence:
The applicant was 59 years of age at sentence and 54 or 55 during the period of the offences. He has no convictions for like offences, although he has some minor convictions for offences of dishonesty in 1987 and 1993. He had quadruple bypass heart surgery in 1996 and it was submitted at sentence that he is not in robust health, although no medical reports or further details were given.
He does not have the mitigating factors of remorse or the willingness to facilitate the course of justice demonstrated by an early plea of guilty.
I note that these offences occurred before the coming into force of the 1997 amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), so that part 9A of that Act does not apply to the applicant's sentence.
Each of the six offences of which the applicant was convicted was punishable by up to life imprisonment. The applicant's offending is particularly serious because of the number of the offences, the fact that the complainant was aged only nine or 10 and the continuing nature of the offending. The applicant took advantage of the complainant's family situation and on one occasion took the complainant to a house, contrary to her mother's specific instructions. The applicant told the complainant on another occasion not to tell anyone or he would kill her. The mother's victim impact statement indicates that the offences have had an enormous detrimental impact on the complainant.
The respondent, at sentence and on this appeal, contends that the appropriate range was a sentence of 10 to 12 years' imprisonment. The applicant, though self-represented on this appeal, was represented at trial and sentence and his counsel there contended the appropriate range was nine to 11 years.
The comparable cases of R v. Griffiths [2000] QCA 70, CA No 218 of 1999, 15 March 2000, R v. Adams [1997] QCA 237, CA No 158 of 1997, 8 August 1997, R v. McKenzie [1999] QCA 344,
CA No 219 of 1999, 20 August 1999 and R v. Massey [1997]
1 QdR 404, demonstrate that although the sentence imposed here was not lenient, it was within a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.
I would dismiss the appeal against conviction and refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
R
Myers [2002] QCA 143
(1996) 190 CLR 348