R v Williams [1996] QCA 216

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1996-06-06|Before: Davies JA, Demack J

The applicant had met the complainant, a 23 year old single mother of two children who was then three months pregnant, a little time earlier and on 10 April 1995, came to where she was living accompanied by another person called Steve. Steve was apparently a friend of the woman with whom the complainant lived although that woman, Roberta, was absent at the time. Roberta's daughter, Clara who was 13, was present in the house as were the complainant's two children.

The two men stayed for a time and had drinks with the complainant but then left. The complainant and Clara closed up the house and made sure all the windows and doors were locked and the complainant said that she placed a small cupboard in front of the rear door with the baby's rattle on top of it. Some time later she woke up and realised she was being kissed on the mouth and saw that it was one of the men who had been at her house previously and that was the applicant.

The offence then to which he pleaded guilty was a very serious one. It involved breaking the glass of a window to get into the house. It involved assaults upon a woman that the applicant knew was pregnant at the time. These assaults occurred in the house where two young children and a 13 year old girl were asleep and threats were made in respect of the 13 year old girl in order to obtain some compliance from the complainant. There was blindfolding with its associated terror. There were the repeated most unwelcome acts. All of this occurred at a time when the applicant was on parole in respect of an offence which has some strong similarity with the facts of this case.

We were referred to a large number of decisions of this Court. Some of them include statements that there was no evidence before the Court as to the impact of the offence upon the complainant. Here the complainant has typed out an impact statement and she describes her revulsion over the whole incident which she has not been able to come to terms with. It is not necessary to refer to all of her words but they can be summed up in this sentence:

"My feelings are mixed up between anger and embarrassment. You feel like a lower class person (scum)."

The treatment to which she was subjected certainly could well produce this kind of result and in her case that is what has happened.

There are no mitigating features in this case except for the fact that the applicant pleaded guilty and did not put the complainant through all the stress and pressures of a trial. However, apart from that, nothing can be said to, in any way, mitigate the gravity of what the facts disclose.

In my view, the sentences to which we have been referred show that the sentence of 14 years for the rape properly reflects the overall gravity of the situation. It is well within range taking into account other decisions of this Court. The learned sentencing Judge has not ignored anything nor over- emphasised any aspect of fact. In my opinion, the application should be refused.

WILLIAMS J: The applicant broke into the house in order to commit the series of offences which have been referred to in the principal judgment. He pleaded guilty to house breaking and, with respect to that, was imprisoned for seven years concurrent with the 14 year term for the rape. The circumstances of this case, in my view, are comparable with those considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Queen v. Gerrits, CA Nos 158 and 192 of 1991, judgment delivered 4 October 1991.

Here the applicant's criminal history was worse and that, in my view, clearly justifies the head sentence that was imposed. I agree with the order proposed on this application.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)