Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

R v McCoy[2020] QCA 59

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McCoy [2020] QCA 59

PARTIES:

R

v

McCOY, Christopher John

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 338 of 2018

DC No 1157 of 2018

DC No 1158 of 2018

DC No 1159 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 November 2018 (Rafter SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of two counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 and nine counts of rape – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material, one count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself and five counts of failing to comply with reporting under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld) – where the applicant’s convictions breached suspended sentences and probation orders – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for each maintaining count and lesser periods of imprisonment for the remaining counts – where the applicant was declared to have been convicted of serious violent offences – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment for each maintaining count on the ground that the sentences were manifestly excessive – where each maintaining count involved sexual conduct against separate male complainants aged seven to eight and eight to nine years at the time of the offences – where the applicant was aged 19 to 20 years at the time of the offences – where the applicant had extensive and relevant past criminal history including offences committed both before and subsequent to the sexual conduct the subject of the maintaining counts – where the pre-sentence report, including a psychiatric assessment, recorded a continual refusal by the applicant to accept responsibility for the offending – where the sentencing Judge accepted that principles of totality were applicable – where the sentencing Judge had regard to a number of mitigating factors, including the applicant’s age, prospects of rehabilitation and pleas of guilty – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment for each maintaining count on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in failing to sufficiently take into account the applicant’s youth, prospects of rehabilitation and mental illness – where the psychiatrist expressed the opinion that the applicant satisfied the diagnostic criteria for a number of psychiatric conditions – where the sentencing judge accepted that the applicant’s psychiatric condition was complex and relevant – where the sentencing judge had regard to a number of mitigating factors, including the applicant’s age and prospects of rehabilitation – whether there was an error of principle

Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, applied

R v CBQ [2016] QCA 125, cited

R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, cited

R v SCK [2016] QCA 34, cited

R v Souter [2002] QCA 516, cited

R v TAJ [2018] QCA 305, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant

D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. [1]
    SOFRONOFF P:  I agree with Boddice J.
  2. [2]
    FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice J and the order proposed by his Honour.
  3. [3]
    BODDICE J:  On 25 May 2018 the applicant was convicted by a jury of two counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 and nine counts of rape.
  4. [4]
    The applicant was also convicted, on his own pleas of guilty, of one count of possessing child exploitation material, one count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself and five counts of failing to comply with reporting under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld).
  5. [5]
    The applicant’s convictions also breached suspended sentences imposed on 13 January 2014 and 6 November 2015 and probation orders imposed on the same dates.
  6. [6]
    On 19 November 2018, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for each maintaining count and lesser periods of imprisonment for the remaining counts.  As a consequence of the sentence of 10 years imprisonment on each maintaining count, the applicant was automatically declared to have been convicted of serious violent offences with the consequence that he be required to serve 80 per cent of that sentence prior to being eligible for release on parole.
  7. [7]
    The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentences of 10 years imprisonment for each maintaining count.  The applicant relies on three grounds of appeal, should leave be granted to appeal those sentences:
  1. The sentence was manifestly excessive.
  1. The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to sufficiently take into account the applicant’s youth, prospects of rehabilitation and men
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    R v McCoy

  • Shortened Case Name:

    R v McCoy

  • MNC:

    [2020] QCA 59

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Sofronoff P, Fraser JA, Boddice J

  • Date:

    03 Apr 2020

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary JudgmentDC1157/18; DC1158/18; DC1159/18 (No Citation)19 Nov 2018Date of Sentence (Rafter SC DCJ).
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2020] QCA 5903 Apr 2020Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Boddice J.

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)
Help

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.