R v CDU[2025] QCA 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   MULLINS P:  I agree with Boddice JA.
2. [2]
   BODDICE JA:  On 2 April 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, four counts of common assault, 18 counts of rape, one count of torture, one count of deprivation of liberty, two counts of malicious act with intent, one count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, four counts of sexual assault, four counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of grievous bodily harm.  All counts were domestic violence offences.
3. [3]
   On the same date, the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle, three counts of wilful damage, two counts of unlawfully entering a vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence with property damage, one count of serious assault with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of burglary, one count of robbery and seven summary charges.
4. [4]
   On 1 May 2020, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of one count of malicious act with intent and four counts of rape; 25 years’ imprisonment for one of the remaining counts of rape, 20 years’ imprisonment for another of the remaining counts of rape and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining counts and summary charges, other than the count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, the four counts of sexual assault, the four counts of supplying dangerous drug and one summary charge.  In respect of each of those counts and the charge, the applicant was convicted but no further penalty imposed.
5. [5]
   It was declared that 237 days spent in pre-sentence custody be time already served under the sentence.  It was also declared that the counts of torture, malicious act with intent and 14 counts of rape, be convictions of a serious violent offence.
6. [6]
   The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal sentence.  Should an extension of time and leave to appeal be granted, the applicant relies on two grounds of appeal.
7. [7]
   First, that the imposition of life imprisonment was manifestly excessive.  The applicant submits that while his criminality can properly be described as in the worst category, a sentence of life imprisonment failed to have regard to the mitigating factors of the applicant having contacted an ambulance, thereby saving the complainant’s life, expressing remorse and entering guilty pleas, thereby cooperating in the administration of justice.
8. [8]
   Second, that the sentencing judge failed to give reasons, or adequate reasons, for not giving a mitigating effect for the pleas of guilty and saving the complainant’s life by contacting emergency services.

Offences

9. [9]
   The counts which were domestic violence offences related to one female complainant, who had been in a relationship with the applicant since 2015.  For part of that relationship, the applicant was incarcerated.  The relationship resumed upon his release in March 2017.
10. [10]
    The offences were committed in June and July 2017.  At that time the complainant was aged 24 years.  The applicant was aged 31 years and had been a user of illicit substances for many years.  He had a past criminal history.  He had previously been sentenced to several periods of actual imprisonment.
11. [11]
    In the weeks leading up to the commission of the offences, the applicant had significantly increased his use of methylamphetamine.  During this period, he experienced paranoid delusions, particularly about the complainant having had sexual relations with numerous men whilst the applicant was in custody.  The applicant also believed the complainant had been responsible for somebody shooting at him.
12. [12]
    The applicant’s criminality commenced approximately one week before the commission of the most serious offences.  During this period, the applicant punched the complainant repeatedly on various occasions.  On the first occasion he kept her in a car for hours whilst questioning her about sexual relations with other men whilst he was in custody.  The complainant sustained a black right eye, swollen face, pinch marks on her wrists and arms and bruising to her arms, ribs and legs.  A few days later, the applicant again punched the complainant several times in the face and side.
13. [13]
    Shortly after that episode, whilst the applicant and the complainant travelled by car to see his father, the applicant repeatedly punched the complainant in her head and ribs, before forcing her to perform oral sex on him.  Whilst returning home, the applicant woke twice and struck the complainant on the face.  Later that night, the applicant struck her seven times to the head.  The applicant then aggressively touched her vagina with his fingers before pushing a deodorant can into her vagina.
14. [14]
    On another occasion, when the complainant visited the applicant’s unit, the applicant threw a television remote at the complainant’s head, hitting her above the left eye, before forcing her to perform oral sex on him.
15. [15]
    Following these incidents there was a sustained period of offending over 23 days.  The applicant punched, elbowed and kneed the complainant multiple times.  On occasions, he stomped on her head.  He made the complainant sleep naked on the floor.  On numerous occasions, he used his phone to video the complainant making confessions to sexual activity with other males and being involved in a drive-by shooting.  The complainant was made to appear naked for the majority of the videos.  He told the applicant he would send the videos to the police.  He made her watch the videos multiple times.  The applicant also made the complainant perform sexual acts while videoing her with his phone.  Once, he made her insert her fingers into her vagina and her anus before directing her to put her fingers into her mouth.  On another occasion, he inserted his fingers into the complainant’s anus before making the complainant suck his fingers.
16. [16]
    As the period of offending progressed, the applicant burnt the complainant with lighters, on multiple occasions.  Commonly he started on her forearms, but moved to her torso if it did not give him the required reaction.  He later burnt the complainant’s nipples and the outside of her vagina.  After burning the complainant over a number of hours, the applicant would leave to consume drugs before returning to assault her and ask for intercourse.  On occasions the applicant would smoke methylamphetamine from a pipe and put the hot bowl on her.  As a consequence, the complainant was left with welts the size of 20 cent coins on her back.
17. [17]
    Throughout this period, the applicant had violent, forced intercourse with the complainant, almost every day.  Intercourse included vaginal, anal and oral sex.  On one occasion, the applicant had the complainant perform oral sex whilst he recorded it on his phone.  He told the complainant he was going to post the video on YouTube and social media.  On another occasion, the applicant forced the complainant to engage in oral sex, making her throw up.  He then made her lick the vomit off him.  He also inserted a deodorant can into the complainant’s vagina.  He said this was to disfigure her “lady parts” to make her less desirable to other men.
18. [18]
    On one occasion the applicant punched, kicked and elbowed the complainant in the head.  He said if he hit her again in the same spot he would cause the head to split.  He made the complainant look in the mirror and told her how disgusting she looked.  He told her it was his intention to disfigure her face so that nobody would want to be with her.  On one occasion he made the complainant kneel on the bed whilst he repeatedly punched her to the mouth and at least once to the nose.
19. [19]
    On three or four occasions the applicant made the complainant get onto her knees whilst he urinated in her mouth.  On other occasions he made the complainant sit on the toilet as he urinated into her mouth.  Two videos were made showing this type of conduct.  On another occasion he made the complainant drink her own urine.
20. [20]
    Whilst the complainant was kept in the bedroom, the applicant told her he was unsure whether he was going to let her live.  He discussed ideas and opinions as to how she may die.  He asked her whether what she had done deserved her to die, or to be disfigured and left high and dry emotionally and financially.
21. [21]
    On another occasion, the applicant boiled water in a kettle.  Whilst interrogating the complainant, he threw the boiling water onto the complainant’s legs and genital area.  He engaged in this type of conduct on numerous occasions.  The complainant knew she was going to be burnt because he would ask her to fill the kettle.  The applicant often engaged in anal penetration after the complainant had been burnt with the boiling water.  One instance was videoed on his phone.  The complainant, whose face was badly injured, performed oral sex before the applicant inserted his penis into her anus, which was bleeding.  On another occasion, he made the complainant lick his dog’s testicles.  He also made her suck the dog’s penis.  He recorded this on his mobile phone.
22. [22]
    Around this time, the applicant assaulted the complainant whilst he asked her questions about a drive-by shooting.  He stomped on the complainant’s head, causing a significant amount of blood to come from her head.  On another occasion the applicant poured acetone on the complainant’s right leg and head.  He said he would pour acetone down her throat and set it alight, before pouring more acetone onto her right leg, telling her to put a towel in her mouth and lighting the acetone.  When it did not have the desired effect, he poured more acetone on her right leg and set it alight, before putting acetone in the kettle with water and boiling it and throwing the contents onto the complainant’s thighs and stomach.  He made her shower which caused her more pain.  The next morning, he squirted a substance that smelled like acetone over parts of her body, before lighting the substance.  The applicant then told the complainant to fill the kettle.  He threw the boiled contents over the complainant.  He made the complainant sleep on the wet floor that night, either totally naked or just wearing underwear.
23. [23]
    Later that day the applicant forced the complainant to swallow a tablet he said was Xanax.  The applicant then left that unit with the complainant, travelling to a hotel.  He said he was leaving because the other occupant of the unit wanted her out, the applicant having shown that person all of the videos.  On the way to the hotel, the applicant pulled over twice, punching and elbowing the complainant in the head.  During the journey, the applicant also repeatedly hit her shins, sometimes with his phone.
24. [24]
    When they arrived at the hotel, the complainant was unable to suck on a pipe placed in her mouth, because of injuries to her lips.  Her depth perception was also affected by injuries to her eye.  The applicant asked the complainant if she had slept with another male whilst he was in custody.  The complainant fabricated a story that she had, because she knew if she continued to deny it he would assault her.  Initially the applicant started to cry, but then changed to be angry.  He punched her for a couple of minutes, splitting open her forehead.  When the complainant tried to stem the bleeding with a towel, the applicant told her to perform oral sex.  Without warning, the applicant punched her in the head and face.  The applicant said it was his intention to not only disfigure her face, but also make her vagina and anus loose so as to make her “look like the slut you are”.
25. [25]
    Whilst at the hotel, the complainant’s burns were peeling and her skin was rotting.  At times the applicant made her remove herself from the sheet she was stuck to, to get drinks from the minibar.  The applicant again quizzed the complainant about her sexual relations with another man.  He slapped and punched her repeatedly.  The two sides of the complainant’s top lip became detached.  After cleaning herself up, the applicant required the complainant to perform oral sex on him.  She felt pain and discomfort because of her split lip.  The applicant then told the complainant to lie down.  He started to have intercourse with her.  It was very uncomfortable as her vagina was sore and swollen.  The applicant called her “a slut” and said her vagina was so big, before repositioning himself and penetrating her anus with his penis.  He said he was going to stretch her anus.  She felt pain as a result of the penetration and her burns.
26. [26]
    The applicant again questioned the complainant about her sexual relations with another man.  He threatened to pour boiling water down her throat.  He tipped a small amount of boiling water onto her stomach.  When the complainant tried to get away, the applicant emptied the kettle onto her.  He refilled the kettle and threw the water at her.  She moved and it mainly hit the carpet and curtains.  The applicant said he would go back to hitting her.  He punched and elbowed her.  She felt a lump come off the back of one of her teeth and blood poured out of her mouth.  The applicant then told the complainant to perform oral sex.  Whilst this occurred, he had a hot methylamphetamine pipe and gestured that he was going to burn her face.  He put it on her lower back instead.  When the complainant said she needed to go to the bathroom, he followed her and as she started to urinate, he told her “don’t do the other bit”.  He said he was going to make the complainant eat it.  The applicant then urinated in the complainant’s mouth.  He told her to swallow it.  He told the complainant to “take a shit on [his] dick”.  He put his penis into her anus, moving it in and out.  When he stopped, his penis was covered in excrement.  He told her to clean it off with her mouth, pushing her head onto his penis and making her lick it.
27. [27]
    Whilst at the hotel, the applicant made the complainant lick his anus.  On another occasion he inserted the handle of a razor into her vagina.  He also made the complainant do voice recordings on his phone, telling her what to say.  He said that after her physical injuries had repaired, he would use the recordings to have her sent to prison and would ruin her.  At times the applicant became angry with the complainant, punching her in the face and head repeatedly.  As a result of repeated assaults over the offending period, the tip of the complainant’s left little finger became mushed.  It was hit when she would put her hands up to protect herself.
28. [28]
    The applicant required the complainant to have a shower.  She could not get up as she was stuck to the sheets.  He helped her into the bathroom and told her to let the water soak into her clothes to help them come off.  He told her that she stank and that her skin was rotting.  The complainant said she needed a hospital.  When their time period for the hotel expired, the applicant gave the complainant some of his clothes to wear, before putting her in the front seat of the car and driving back to the unit.
29. [29]
    Whilst at the unit, the applicant sought assistance from a friend to obtain creams and dressings for the complainant’s injuries.  Later, the applicant made an anonymous call to 000.  The applicant told the operator his friend was in “pretty bad shape”.  He said he did not know what happened to her, that she had taken a turn for the worst and that she may have blood poisoning.  When emergency services arrived, they smelt “death”.  There was a strong smell of decaying flesh.  They found the complainant in the downstairs bedroom.  Her appearance was such that they initially thought she was dead.
30. [30]
    After the complainant had been found by emergency services, the applicant told a friend that he had done something terrible.  He showed the friend photographs on his phone, saying he had been doing it for a couple of weeks.  He said it was all due to jealousy and because the complainant kept lying.  He said it was too hard to look after the complainant and that he did not think he could kill her, so he had called an ambulance.  The applicant also said he wanted to dispose of the sheets, towels and clothing that he had in his car.  He unsuccessfully tried to burn the various items.
31. [31]
    When police attempted to intercept the applicant on 5 July 2017, for the purposes of a random breath test, the applicant continued to drive despite police sounding the siren.  Police checks revealed the vehicle had been stolen and that the applicant’s drivers’ licence had been disqualified in 2016 for two years.
32. [32]
    The applicant was ultimately arrested on 10 July 2017.  He attempted to evade arrest, colliding with cars, causing substantial damage.  The applicant then forced another motorist out of their vehicle.  As he drove away, he hit a police car.  He drove over the speed limit, swerving into the wrong lane.  He then entered a stationary vehicle at a set of lights, telling the driver to drive away.  After a short distance, the applicant entered the driver’s seat.  When a police officer approached the car and drew his weapon, the applicant accelerated, turning the car sharply, causing a police officer to lose his footing and suffer abrasions and soreness.  The applicant drove to a dead end street and approached a residence, demanding a set of keys or he would “smash” the person.  Police located the applicant looking into the window of a utility.

Sentence hearing

33. [33]
    At the sentence hearing the Crown tendered photographs of the complainant’s injuries, together with a victim impact statement from the complainant and another person who suffered financially as a consequence of the loss of a motor vehicle.
34. [34]
    The complainant spoke of the devastation caused to her by the applicant’s prolonged brutality, detailing the very many lasting physical injuries, as well as the psychological impacts of those injuries.  The other person spoke of the financial and emotional impact associated with being involved in the incident.
35. [35]
    Defence counsel tendered a letter of apology from the applicant, as well as four references.  In the letter of apology, the applicant spoke of his regret for his disgraceful behaviour and of the steps that he had taken in custody to address his behaviour.  He apologised to the complainant.  The applicant also apologised to police for his belligerent behaviour upon arrest.  The applicant said he would continue to work towards being a better and more respectful man in the community.  The references spoke of the applicant’s deep remorse for his actions.
36. [36]
    Defence counsel submitted that whilst the applicant’s criminality involved a very serious example of torture, rape and injury over a period of 23 days, with long-term sequalae both physically and psychologically, a sentence of life imprisonment, even globally, was unwarranted.  It was submitted that a head sentence of up to 20 years was appropriate, particularly having regard to the pleas of guilty and the fact that the applicant obtained help for the complainant, thereby not allowing her to die.

Sentencing remarks

37. [37]
    The criminality involved in the applicant’s offending had horrible consequences for the complainant.  The sentencing judge summarised it thus:

“The offending involved serious domestic violence.  The offending in counts 1-9 was described by the Crown prosecutor as precursor events in the lead up to the most severe conduct.  The offending in counts 10-14 and 16-39 involved the infliction of severe physical, psychological and sadistic violence upon the complainant.  The offending in counts 45-55 relates to your attempts to evade the police.

During a period of 23 days from the 11^th of June to the 3^rd of July 2017, the complainant was subjected to extreme physical and sexual violence.  When found by ambulance officers in the [suburban unit] on the 2^nd of July 2017, the complainant was on the brink of death.  The police officers and paramedics noticed a strong smell of decaying flesh.  The complainant was located in the downstairs bedroom, lying on a single foam mattress which was on top of a queen mattress on a bedframe.

The bodyworn camera footage (exhibit 8) shows the seriousness of the complainant’s condition.  The complainant had extensive purple discolouration to the face and dried blood on her head.  Her eyes were swollen shut, lips drawn back and discoloured, and teeth were exposed.  She was covered in a blanket.  The left side of her face was missing all of the skin, with reddened membrane visible and weeping clear fluids.  There was some skin still attached around the left side of her mouth.  Blood came from an injury past her hairline and was streaming past her left ear.  She had a hole in her forehead which was leaking fluid.

After removing the blanket, clean white bandages on the complainant’s forearm and both legs from the ankle to the hip, were revealed.  A large amount of dark coloured fluid was located on the sheet under the complainant.  The pillow was also covered in fluid, which was yellow with red and blotches of black.  The complainant was dressed in a black singlet and no underwear.

Because of the complainant’s appearance, the first response officers formed the view that she was deceased, but after hearing a noise from her, they realised she was still alive.  Paramedics consequently began treatment.  The complainant was only able to make incomprehensible sounds.  As a result of the complainant’s wounds, she was stuck to the mattress, and her shirt was stuck to her stomach.  Paramedics had to cut the material off the mattress around the complainant to get her off it and out of the unit.  As she was being moved, clear brown fluid came from the hole in her forehead.  The paramedics attended the [suburban unit] as a result of an anonymous 000 call made by you.”^[1]

38. [38]
    After outlining the sentencing principles and relevant factors, the sentencing judge recorded the following aggravating features:

    1. the offences were committed whilst the applicant was on parole;
    2. the complainant was subjected to the most brutal physical, sexual and sadistic violence, including the intentional infliction of severe pain and suffering and doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure the complainant;
    3. the complainant was subjected to degrading acts, with the applicant recording a number of his acts of violence and depravity;
    4. the applicant continued his conduct notwithstanding the complainant’s worsening physical condition and obvious severe physical injuries;
    5. the complainant’s face tissue was so severely infected it had maggots;
    6. there were burns to 46 per cent of her total body surface and the complainant suffered from serious disfigurement, including loss of hair, facial scarring and skin discolouration;
    7. the complainant was hospitalised for a period of eight weeks and unconscious for 10 days.  She woke up from an induced coma to confronting injuries and disbelief that she was alive;
    8. her ongoing injuries serve as a physical reminder of the offences;
    9. the complainant required intense rehabilitation to learn to walk again and to do things such as eat and speak.  Her eyesight was irreversibly affected, she continued to have flashbacks to the depraved acts and she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder;
    10. the complainant also suffered financially.
39. [39]
    The sentencing judge recorded the mitigating factors.  The applicant pleaded guilty, thereby facilitating the administration of justice.  Further, although the pleas of guilty were not necessarily a sign of remorse, the applicant had written a letter apologising to the complainant, recognising that his actions were unwarranted, a complete overreaction and magnified by his poor decision to be in a drug induced state.  The applicant had also called 000.  Although he did so anonymously, the sentencing judge accepted that the 000 call undoubtedly saved the complainant’s life.  However, the sentencing judge did not accept it was necessarily an indication of remorse.  The sentencing judge stated that his impression of the applicant’s character was that he was motivated by self-interest.  The sentencing judge also doubted that his expressions of remorse were genuine.
40. [40]
    The sentencing judge further found that whilst the character references indicated the applicant had support, one described the applicant as “an honourable individual and a good human being”.  The sentencing judge said he would not so describe the applicant.  The sentencing judge acknowledged that the applicant had completed a low intensity substance abuse program whilst in custody, as well as a medium intensity substance intervention course, had commenced a business and commerce degree and was on the waiting list for a domestic violence prevention course.
41. [41]
    After referring to comparable authorities,^[2] the sentencing judge observed that comparable sentences assisted in promoting consistency and provided guidance by way of a yardstick, but that such cases do not mark with numerical precision the outer bounds of the sentencing judge’s discretion.
42. [42]
    The sentencing judge recorded that the Crown submitted that a penalty of life imprisonment should be imposed, but that defence counsel submitted that the offences were not so grave as to warrant a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  The sentencing judge recorded that defence counsel had submitted that the anonymous 000 call created a situation where the complainant’s life could be saved and showed a degree of humanity on the applicant’s part, even though a part of his motivation may well have been “self-serving”.
43. [43]
    The sentencing judge found:

“The issue for determination is whether your offending is so grave that it warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty: Markarian v The Queen at 372 [31].  The nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal are to be considered.  An offence may be assessed as so grave as to warrant the maximum penalty, notwithstanding that it is possible to imagine an even worse case: The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256 at 265-266 [18].

This is a particularly serious instance of domestic violence.  The prolonged period of sustained brutality, the sexual depravity and sadistic nature of the offending are factors that make this a grave case of domestic violence.  Your pleas of guilty are taken into account, but that does not diminish the seriousness of your offending.  The anonymous 000 call seems to have been made out of self-interest, rather than because of any genuine concern for the complainant.  The only reasons put forward for your heinous conduct are that you lapsed into taking methylamphetamine in May 2017 and held a belief that the complainant was involved in the drive-by shooting at your residence. You also seemed to be obsessed with the notion that the complainant had sexual relationships with other men.

As was explained by the Court of Appeal in R v Major; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] 1 Qd R 465 at 481 [53]:

The dreadful effects of prolonged episodes of domestic violence are notorious…  Deterrence, both personal and general, is an important factor in sentencing in domestic violence cases.  So too is denunciation.  The community through the courts seeks sentences which show the public disapprobation of such conduct.  The effects of domestic violence go beyond the trauma suffered by victims, survivors and their children to their extended families, and friends.

In your case, the protection of the community is an important factor to be taken into account.  Of course, a sentence should not be increased beyond what is proportionate to the crime, to extend the period of protection of the community.

For the period of 23 days, you engaged in systematic acts of degradation and torture.  The victim was a young woman who had once cared for you and provided support when you faced serious charges in the Supreme Court.  You took pleasure in the infliction of pain.  Your brutality took her to the edge of death.  It was concern for yourself that ultimately led to her survival.  The victim’s life will never be the same.  Yet, despite the terrible ordeal she has suffered, she displays courage, dignity and resilience.

I have carefully considered whether your pleas of guilty and anonymous 000 call are factors that should result in a lesser sentence than life imprisonment.  A plea of guilty may result in a reduction of sentence.  The reduction may be made having regard to the time at which the offender pleaded guilty or informed the prosecution of an intention to plead guilty.  The gravity of your offending is such that a reduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence of life imprisonment should not be made.  Your anonymous 000 call cannot be regarded as being of the same nature as the intervention by the offender in R v Mahony & Shenfield [2012] QCA 366, which led to the life of a child being saved.

A consideration of all relevant factors leads me to the conclusion that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate for the offences that involved a high level of violence or depravity.  I have therefore concluded that the gravity of your offending, reflected in the following counts, justifies the imposition of the maximum penalties:

• count 10 – torture: 14 years imprisonment;
• counts 12 and 21 – malicious act with intent: life imprisonment;
• counts 24, 29, 30, 33 and 34 – rape: life imprisonment.

The offence of torture involved sustained cruelty to the complainant and included daily forceful rape at the [suburban unit].  The torture count does not include the rape counts specifically charged in the indictment.  The offences in count 11 (deprivation of liberty), count 13 (sexual assault with a circumstance of aggravation), counts 20, 22, 25 and 32 (sexual assault), count 36 (grievous bodily harm), and counts 26, 37, 38 and 39 (supplying a dangerous drug) have been relied upon as particulars of the offence of torture.  As the punishment for those offences will be reflected in the sentence imposed for torture, I intend to adopt the approach in R v R and S; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2000] 2 Qd R 413 of recording convictions for those offences and imposing no further penalty.

The offences of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure (counts 12 and 21) are so serious as to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The offence of rape in count 24 is a particularly serious example of rape by anal intercourse.  The complainant’s face was badly injured.  After making her perform oral sex, you inserted your penis into her anus, which was bleeding.  You recorded the anal rape on your phone.

The offences of rape in counts 29 and 30 occurred at [a city motel].  The complainant’s burns were peeling, and her skin was rotting.  The complainant was in pain.  Her lip was split. Count 29 involved vaginal intercourse.  The complainant’s vagina was sore and swollen from the things done to her at the unit.  You then penetrated her anus with your penis, saying you were going to stretch her anus.  She told you she was in pain because of her burns, but you continued.

The circumstances of counts 33 and 34 have been outlined.  The offences involved degrading acts of anal intercourse, following which the complainant was forced to lick your penis, which was covered in excrement.

I intend to impose sentences for the other offences that I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.”^[3]

Consideration

Ground 1

44. [44]
    The applicant submits that a sentence of life imprisonment did not give any mitigating effect to the applicant’s remorse, his pleas of guilty and his actions in notifying ambulance services, thereby saving the complainant’s life.
45. [45]
    However, a consideration of the applicant’s criminal conduct, over a period of weeks, during which the applicant committed many offences which individually carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, supports a conclusion that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted, even allowing for those matters in mitigation.
46. [46]
    The applicant’s conduct was utterly brutal and accompanied by unspeakable depravity, including filming his criminal acts.  He persisted with that criminality, notwithstanding obvious severe injuries.  His use of boiling water, such that there were burns to almost half of the complainant’s body, was for the stated purpose of disfiguring the complainant so that she would not be attractive to others.  The sexual offending also involved degrading and persistent conduct, designed to humiliate and physically injure the complainant so as to mark her to other sexual partners in later life.
47. [47]
    Such conduct called for a sentence where deterrence and denunciation was paramount.  Even allowing for the utility of the applicant’s pleas of guilty, his stated remorse and the fact that his telephone call to 000 saved the complainant’s life, a sentence less than life imprisonment, would not have been just in the circumstances.

Ground 2

48. [48]
    The sentencing judge specifically addressed whether the pleas of guilty and the 000 call warranted a reduction from a sentence of life imprisonment.  The sentencing judge found that the gravity of the offending was such that a reduction ought not to be made from what was otherwise the appropriate sentence of life imprisonment.
49. [49]
    Having regard to the sentencing judge’s careful reasoning as to the basis for finding that the applicant’s high level of violence and depravity warranted the imposition of the maximum penalties, there is no basis to conclude that the reasons for not reducing the sentence of life imprisonment were inadequate.  To the contrary, the reasons carefully reflected the balancing of factors relevant to a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.
50. [50]
    Further, the sentencing judge correctly observed that the applicant’s actions in telephoning 000 were not comparable to the intervention by the offender in R v Mahony & Shenfield.^[4]  In that case, the offender had intervened to stop the co-offender from murdering the child complainant.  The co-offender had actually placed something around the child’s neck, which the offender removed from the child.
51. [51]
    Finally, there is no basis to conclude that the sentencing judge’s finding as to a lack of genuine remorse was contrary to the evidence.  In his letter of apology, the applicant spoke of a difficulty in forgiving himself for actions which he described as “a complete overreaction” and due to a poor decision “to be in a drug induced state”.  Whilst the applicant apologised to the complainant, police and emergency services officers and family and friends, a consideration of the letter as a whole supported a conclusion that the applicant was remorseful for his predicament, rather than genuinely remorseful for the complainant’s injuries and their consequences.

Orders

52. [52]
    I would order:

1. Leave to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal sentence granted.
2. Leave to appeal sentence granted.
3. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

53. [53]
    BRADLEY JA:  I agree with Boddice JA.