R v Colless[2009] QDC 283

The last attack occurred on a young woman, jogging at the foot of the cliffs at Kangaroo Point at 12.30 p.m. It was fortunately the commission of this offence which led to your apprehension because someone nearby had taken the registration number of your vehicle.

The women were aged between 18 and 52 years. A number of them demonstrated their trust in the safety of their environment by greeting you by smiles, in the case of the victims of count 3, counts 11 and 12 and count 18, or simply saying, "G'day", immediately before you attacked them.

Each of the rapes was digital, rather than penile. There were three intrusions to the vagina and two intrusions to the anus digitally. Your conduct can be summarised as follows:

In relation to count 1, the charge of sexual assault, you were hiding behind a car from where you lunged forward and tackled the complainant to the ground. You put your hand over her face and pinned her head to the ground. You put your hand up, under her bra, and pinched her nipples firmly.

In relation to count 2, the count of rape, you inserted fingers into her vagina and moved them from side to side for two to three seconds. She suffered abrasions to her body and neck pain as a result.

In relation to count 3, a charge of sexual assault, as you passed the victim you reached out and squeezed her left breast.

For count 4, a charge of assault with intent to rape, you put your hand over the complainant's mouth and pushed her to the ground. You touched her inner right thigh, up under her skirt, but she was able to fight you off.

Count 5 is a charge of sexual assault and count 6, assault with intent to rape. This complainant was the first of a number of women who you attacked from behind. You put your hand over her mouth and another over her chest and you rubbed her chest area outside her shirt. You put your hand underneath her underwear and touched her buttocks. She suffered pain to the jaw and the neck area.

In her victim impact statement she said it took one and a‑half weeks after that for her to clench her jaw properly. She did not know whether she was going to live during the attack. She described her feelings at the time as "pure fear".

In relation to count 7, a charge of rape, you pushed the victim, who was riding a bike along a bike track, on two occasions until she fell off onto the grass, adjacent to the bikeway. You put one hand around her throat. You pushed her head down and you twisted it. She could not breathe well.

You pinned her down with your weight. She thought she heard the word, "bitch" before you digitally penetrated her vagina in a thrusting manner for about four seconds. She suffered pain to the lower neck area as well as bruising and scratching.

In her victim impact statement she says that she spent thousands of dollars seeing medical specialists and therapists, hoping they could rectify or improve the pain to her back and neck as a result of deep bruising, and damage to her spine and neck which she suffered as a result of your conduct towards her.

Count 8, is a charge of assault with intent to commit rape. Again, you grabbed the victim from behind as she walked along a bikeway, covering her mouth. She was pushed to the ground and you tried to push her closer to the bushes. She screamed and you left. She suffered abrasions and swellings to her lip, and bruises.

Counts 9 and 10 are offences of sexual assault and assault with intent to commit rape respectively. In this case you grabbed the victim from behind, you put your hands over her mouth, consistent with your modus operandi in relation to a number of these attacks.

You twisted and pushed her to the ground. You put your hand under her bra and squeezed her left breast for ten seconds. You touched her buttocks, anal and vaginal areas beneath her underwear for a few seconds before running away.

She experienced tenderness to the right side of her neck, scratches to her right shoulder and a bruise to her left shoulder. There was also a superficial point five centimetre laceration at the back entrance to her vagina which bled when stretched, and a small abrasion between her anus and her vagina.

Counts 11, 12 and 13 are respectively charges of rape, sexual assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. In this case you put your right hand over the victim's mouth and you threw her to the ground. You briefly inserted two fingers into her vagina. You also grabbed her left breast, under her bra, for a few seconds. She was the first person whom you gratuitously assaulted. In addition to the injuries from this, which I have already mentioned, she suffered scratches and abrasions.

It appears that your level of violence was escalating, or as MrMoynihan put it, "You were increasing the level of violence proportionately to the level of resistance that you were experiencing so you used the extent of violence you needed to overcome the resistance which was able to be offered by these women."

Count 14 is one of assault occasioning bodily harm and count 15 is one of assault with intent to rape. As you passed the complainant on a narrow section of the walking circuit at Brisbane Forest Park, you reached out and pulled her to the ground. You pinned her down with the weight of your body. This was the other victim who fought back and was punched and received a threat to kill. The victim impact statement that she gave says that she feared for her life. You also touched her on the outside of the vagina, underneath her pants.

A diamond earring which had been bought for her by a relative, as a 50th birthday present, two years earlier, was ripped from her ear. As well as the injuries that I have mentioned from the punch, she suffered multiple bruises, abrasions and scratches.

Count 16 is rape and count 17 is another sexual assault. Again, you walked behind the victim at the Burleigh Headland area and pulled her to the ground, pushing her head down. You pushed two fingers into her anus with some force causing immediate pain and discomfort. You forced your fingers in and out around ten times. You also put your hands under her top and vigorously groped her right breast for a short time.

She suffered abrasions and a one centimetre bleeding split type laceration on the anal opening, consistent with distended force. In her victim impact statement she talks about arriving home after she had spoken to the police and she started shaking and crying when she went to the bathroom and found that she was bleeding and thought that she had contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

The last count, count 18, another count of rape, involved you grabbing the last of your victims by the shoulders and flinging her to the ground. You put your hand over her mouth and nose so that she felt that she couldn't breathe. You penetrated her anus with your finger for about 10 seconds. As a result, she experienced a cut, bruises and grazes. To state all of this factual background underlines the seriousness of your offending.

The serious feature of your offending is that you are a serial rapist who engaged in a course of conduct in which you violently and sexually attacked and terrorised a large number of victims over a seven month period in public places. It was, in my view, a premeditated and systematic series of attacks, as was put by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is a case, notwithstanding the shared conclusion of Doctors Lawrence, Sundin and Keane, that you had, and still have, a mixed personality disorder with strong obsessive compulsive traits and a paraphilia involving recurrent sexual urges in relation to non-consenting persons resulting in an uncontrollable compulsion to violently attack and rape women in public places. Because you drove in areas looking for the opportunity to attack women and as Dr Lawrence said at paragraph 6.5.1 of her report, "The record of interview, in general terms, is consistent with information subsequently provided at interview with me. Namely, that the attacks were random and opportunistic in the sense that whilst he had been driving in the areas on occasions and looking for someone to attack the attack was provided by the opportunity usually through the presence of a female on the bikeway and the absence of other witnesses as well as the opportunity to park and remain hidden. He changed his clothes in the car, resuming his usual work attire after most attacks".

As has been said, the offences generally followed a pattern which was called "ritualistic" by Dr Sundin consistent with your obsessive compulsive traits. You would drive, generally in connection with work related travel to areas where you would observe women, change into your running clothes so that you would not be identified in your work uniform with its logo, and then stalk your potential victim and position yourself so as to be able to grab the victim as she came past you.

For example, in relation to counts 1 and 2, notwithstanding that you told Dr Keane that in terms of your first attack you were frightened into attacking and you were taken by surprise and instantly grabbed the woman, you, in fact, hid behind a car parked in a driveway to provide you with cover to facilitate your actions in lunging out and taking her by surprise.

In relation to count 4 involving the second of your victims, you told the police that you were driving to work and took a detour with the intent of attacking again.

Count 8, which related to the sixth of the victims, who was walking on The Gap bikeway, was doing so at a time when you said you were walking along the same track with the intention of attacking again.

With reference to counts 9 and 10 involving the seventh complainant at the Russell Street Indooroopilly Water Reserve, you said you went there to attack someone as it seemed like a good spot and somewhere quiet and not busy.

In relation to counts 11, 12 and 13 with the eighth complainant at the Chermside Hills Reserve, you said that you had been to this are before with the intent to attack but had not gone through with it. However, your intention in going back there again, in my view, was obviously to do what you did and that was to attack the unfortunate woman who was in that area at the time.

Counts 14 and 15, with reference to the ninth victim in Brisbane Forest Park, occurred in circumstances where you told the police that you went to the jogging and walking circuit with the intention of attacking someone.

The tenth victim was the subject of count 16 and 17 and that was at Burleigh Headlands. That was some distance away from the normal area where you attacked people but you said you drove there looking for someone to attack and thought that this may be a good spot.

The last, and eleventh victim, the subject of count 18 at the Kangaroo Point Cliffs, was attacked in circumstances where you said you changed from your work clothing as you didn't want to be walking about with your work logo on. Obviously, you again went there with an intention to attack, and I so find.

Mr Colless, you were a sexual predator looking for opportunities to attack with the minimum opportunity of being caught. Despite the fact that you say that you felt ashamed after each attack and tried to avoid thinking about the offences, as I have said, you not only went to places where the opportunity to engage in this conduct again would present itself but you took measures to facilitate concealing your identity to avoid being caught by always having the change of clothing in your car and stalking women after the earlier offences in areas which were quiet and not busy where you could create the maximum fear in the victim and reduce the chances of being caught. Possibly the only exception to that in the later offending was the Kangaroo Point Cliffs which might be regarded as a more public place.

In fact, you told Dr Keane that you didn't think that you could stop until you were caught but having said that, as I have also noted, you made every attempt to avoid being caught. These were cowardly attacks which were often made from behind on your victims.

I have mentioned the violence that you used against the victims and as the Director of Public Prosecutions has said, "The degree of violence used depended on the resistance you encountered". You were prepared to use the level of violence necessary to overcome their resistance. You displayed a callous disregard for the dignity and welfare of the women involved. They were violated and degraded. Many have suffered more devastating psychological consequences than their immediate physical injuries as the Victim Impact Statements demonstrate.

It is not my intention to read through every one but to summarise the consequences of your offending to these women, because many of the psychological developments that they suffered they have in common. But I will read one of those statements because I believe that it sums up the effect that you had on these women who, as I have said, were simply trying to enjoy and obtain pleasure from their environment as they went about their daily exercise.

The victim in counts 11 and 12, who was raped, sexually assaulted and suffered bodily harm at the Chermside Hills Reserve wrote this:

"That day was like no other in my life. That day I was robbed of my positive outlook on life and of my trust in human nature.

"I loved walking my dog wherever I wished, by myself, enjoying solitude and my surroundings without a care in the world. Walking was a great way to exercise and a fantastic way to unwind after a busy day at work, particularly in the hills where I could imagine myself to be absolutely anywhere.

"That day was very normal, so much so that I don't even remember what else I did that day. I chose to walk my [dog] in the Chermside Hills ...... It was not long before 6.00 p.m. in the midst of summer; heaps of daylight to come, and gorgeous weather still to be soaked up.

"Not long into my walk I encountered a man; just an ordinary man who I thought to be having a bad day because he didn't acknowledge my 'hello' and the look on his face was one of stark nothingness. Baseball cap and large, dark sunglasses.

"As he passed, [my dog] jumped on him - she loves people - and he brushed her aside. Thinking not much of it I continued my walk.

"About 500 metres or so further around the track I noticed the same man approaching us again. I remember thinking to myself, 'I won't bother being friendly this time, he obviously has other things on his mind.'

"That's when my world changed. I've never been assaulted before. Never bothered to associate with people with violent thoughts in their minds. Their world was far removed from mine. I always gave people the benefit of the doubt.

"The hours ensuing the assault were mind-numbing. My house was full of police. My husband was doing his best to rush home from his work. I was trying to comprehend 'why'. I felt strong that I was able to fight him off and quite proud of myself for doing so, but what next? What about my active independent lifestyle? What about the rush job I had to hand in at work tomorrow? How will this affect my husband? Where were my glasses? I need them to see.

"I've never been punched before. What about Christmas coming up and about [my daughter's] graduation next week? What about the Gold Coast bike road on Sunday? My world had changed.

"Doctors visits. Police station interviews. Time off work. Conversations to tell loved ones. Phone calls. Psychologist appointments. Hearing about my assault on the radio and television. Doubts, fears, tears; all things generally absent from my day-to-day. Now more frequent than ever.

"Horrible thoughts and flashbacks had taken over my space. Friends who enjoyed walking on their own stopped doing so because of what had happened to me; put fear into their lives as well.

"My fortnightly visits to the Blood Bank to donate was ceased for a year because of the risk that I may have contracted some disease. I was devastated. I had set myself a personal goal to make 200 donations by 2008 but the goal was shattered.

"Every man I saw wearing a cap and sunglasses sent a shiver up my spine. Was that him? I put my mind right back to that moment when I was forced to the ground, kicking and screaming.

"People standing behind me put me on edge. This also triggered horrible images in my thoughts. For months I wouldn't go into my own backyard at night, nor would I shower if my husband wasn't home. I was anxious for most of the time when I was isolated.

"I still feel for all those involved. All those who went through the same ordeal as I did. All of their friends, families and colleagues. Hundreds of well meaning people who I'm certain just want to blend in with the rest of humankind, wishing their lives weren't affected by such a life-altering event.

"Twenty months later I still haven't ventured to that spot by myself. I will one day. Maybe when this is all behind me for good. When that day will be, who knows?"

And that demonstrates not only the consequences suffered by the victim, but the indirect consequences that flow on to family and friends.

Other victims spoke about the sense of trust being taken away from them. One of the victims said, "I'll never be the same again. I've been in a constant state of fear. This crime has robbed me of my freedom and my sense of security."

Another said, "It is something that has been on my mind on a daily basis. I know that I will never feel the same again. Feel that memory of attack will stay with me for the rest of my life."

Another spoke of feeling anxious when alone and still being unsettled by people who walk up behind her.

Another said she no longer felt safe and confident when she walked. She no longer walks alone. She's hypervigilent. She no longer greets passers-by. She talks about the negative impact on the quality of her life by limiting the sense of her enjoyment of the outdoors and her freedom and general wellbeing.

One of the victims says she's gone from an independent, confident athlete to a person who doesn't like being in public alone.

Another talks of being constantly paranoid. Wherever she walks she's always looking over her shoulder. She is always anxious and nervous. She's even paranoid in her own home, thinking someone is going to break in.

The victim from the Brisbane Forest Park speaks about being frightened to be left alone at home.

The victim from The Gap bikeway says that she no longer does regular walking as an exercise. She finds it hard to sleep. She has recurring nightmares of the attack.

For another, it's affected every part of her life; physically, emotionally and financially. She had to cease dancing, which was her favourite pastime, because of ongoing pain. She's not able to ride her bicycle anymore, which she sees as a sad loss of a favourite activity, and her fitness has been reduced as a result.

It took her one year before she could even walk from her home to the local bus stop. She speaks about experiencing anxiety attacks and nightmares. She can rarely be alone at night. She had to resign her job because it required her to work alone. She lost friends and friendships because of the incident. She experiences flashbacks and doesn't feel safe catching taxis.

The victim from Burleigh Heads said that she's scared to ever go back to the place that she loved; a place where she used to exercise and enjoy the beautiful surroundings and go swimming with her friends.

The victims talk about forced changes to their lifestyle with consequential impacts on their relationships, health and wellbeing. One talks about her overriding emotion being anger, and two of them have left Australia to work overseas because they can't feel safe in Brisbane anymore.

I should make the point, at this stage, that it is not suggested that you are the perpetrator of all the 43 offences that Mr Moynihan spoke about yesterday, which were alleged to be associated with the so called "bikeway rapist". As Mr Moynihan said, there are alleged to be three perpetrators for those 43 offences. Your confession meant that the police could concentrate on the other offenders.

As the Director points out, you did not voluntarily desist from this conduct. You stopped only when you were apprehended. You also, initially, denied your involvement and I'll return to the issue of the extent of your cooperation with police shortly.

As we sit here today your psychiatric condition remains unresolved and untreated. That is to say, your uncontrollable urge to attack and rape women remains untreated. This is relevant to giving primacy to the protection of the community when passing sentence.

Doctor Sundin says, at pages 13 to 14 of his report, that he considers that you will be an excellent candidate for a sexual offenders' treatment program, as well as individual psychotherapy to help you gain insight into the psycho-dynamic underpinnings of your behaviour, as well as by cognitive behaviour therapy to modify the disturbed compulsions.

He considers that your risk of future sexual recidivism would be reduced by participation in a sexual offenders' treatment program.

Dr Lawrence says, at various parts of her report, that psychological assistance and participation in the sexual offending therapy programs during incarceration, in her opinion, would significantly decrease the risk of re-offending in the future. She regards you as "a very promising prospect of rehabilitation to avoid further sexual offending in future."

She says, at paragraph 25.8, that you have a strong motivation to accept your punishment, to undergo rehabilitation and intend not to re-offend.

At paragraph 25.9 she says, "As indicated, the actuarial risk assessments indicate that there is no evidence of any psychopathic qualities to his personality. His risk of violent and sexual offending on those tests is low."

At 25.11 and 25.12 she says that you are very appropriate for rehabilitation through attendance at a high intensity sexual offender program and, in her opinion, "with the added benefit of this and the associated psychological insights that will hopefully accompany that program, the risk of re-offending sexually would be low."

Dr Keane says, at page 12 of her report, that you are motivated and keen to participate in a rehabilitation program. You have not received any previous rehabilitation or therapy, and Mr Kimmins explained to me yesterday how, in a prison situation, whilst you are on remand, that is outside of your hands. She says that you are a good candidate for rehabilitation. She thinks the prognosis for treatment is positive and that your condition could be treated to the point that you'll be able to be released back into the community at some point in time.

Therefore, while those professionals speak of a reduced likelihood of re-offending, a low risk of re-offending and of you being a good candidate for rehabilitation, none of course rule out the risk of sexual re-offending.

As the DPP says, "It is more than just completing those courses in prison, but the authorities would have to be certain that you have successfully completed the courses before any real assessment of your future risk can be made."

I am conscious that I must not increase your sentence beyond what is proportionate to the crimes that you have committed in order to merely extend the period of protection of society from the risk of your recidivism. That would be contrary to decisions of the High Court of Australia and the Queensland Court of Appeal applying those decisions, but those cases also say it is permissible for me to have regard to the protection of society as one of the factors amongst others in the exercise of my sentencing discretion, and as Mr Moynihan reminded me, under the Penalty and Sentences Act principles for violent offences I must give primacy to protection of the community.

I am also conscious that in cases such as Burley, that was referred to me yesterday, the prospects of your rehabilitation and your risk of further offending are relevant matters to consider in determining whether to impose a period of life imprisonment for the rape offences. As you know, the Director of Public Prosecutions submits that the appropriate sentence is life imprisonment and without resiling from this he would not go below 25 years.

He submits that anything in the order of 20 years, such as was the sentence ultimately received by Mr Burley, would be manifestly inadequate. He puts his primary submission to me in these words: "The Crown submits that the appropriate penalty for the criminality in this course of conduct is the maximum life imprisonment.

"It" - that is the course of conduct - "falls into the worst category. Only life imprisonment, notwithstanding the plea, and other matters of mitigation give appropriate weight to the seriousness of this course of conduct, principles of denunciation and deterrence and the primacy that must be accorded to protecting the community."

On the other hand, your counsel submits that a sentence of between 10 and 14 years as the appropriate range. He refers, in particular, to your cooperation with justice, your early plea of guilty on an ex-officio indictment, your remorse and contrition and other aspects of the circumstances.

In relation to your cooperation with the administration of justice, he points to the fact that you did confess to the police your involvement in these offences on the 21st of July 2008 and you said that you wanted to get the matter over and done with, and it has been an ex-officio indictment, that is one that is presented directly to this Court rather than going through the normal committal process, since that time.

On the other hand, Mr Moynihan says that you only disclosed your involvement when it was obvious that you were identified. He points to the fact that on the 21st of July 2008, you were advised by the police that they already had a match to two other offences by virtue of your DNA sample.

It is clear from the affidavit of your solicitor, Mr Cameron, in paragraph 10, that when he spoke to you at the police station on the 21st of July 2008, that he did tell you that the police only had evidence in relation to two offences at that time. It is also not contested that when you were first interviewed about the final count on the 16th of July2008, you denied your involvement in that offence.

However, you did consent to a photo being taken and to providing your DNA. As a result, the victim positively identified you from the photograph. Later that night you requested a further interview in which you made partial admissions to the offence at Kangaroo Point. I say partial admissions because you denied penetrating the victim with your finger, which of course you now accept by this plea of guilty. You also on that occasion denied attacking anyone before.

Shortly afterwards, detectives from the Operation Echo Shine Taskforce who were investigating these 43 offences that included your offences, conducted an interview with you in which you denied knowledge of similar offences which were being investigated by them under that operation.

However, Mr Kimmins makes the points to me that in evaluating the level of your cooperation, I should take into account that you did voluntarily consented to the photo and the DNA being taken, rather than insisting that the police take it without your consent. You did admit involvement on the 16th of July in the offence which is now count 18.

Further, although you did know about the match of DNA in two cases, you did not have to speak to the police from this point of time. You could have required them to prove their case against you. You didn't know what other evidence they had or whether in particular they had other DNA evidence. You nonetheless voluntarily confessed to these other offences, knowing the ramifications of doing so.

Mr Cameron says at paragraph 12 of his affidavit that you cried and said you wanted to tell them everything and clear it all up so as to get this over and done with. During the interview you said to contact the complainants at the first reasonable opportunity to advise them that they wouldn't be further required. You volunteered information about count 3 when asked whether there was anything else that you wanted to disclose. That was not one of the matters, it seems, that the police were specifically asking you about.

On the 22nd of July 2008, after your first Court appearance, Mr Cameron advised the DPP that this matter would be dealt with by ex officio indictment. By doing all of this, you have saved many months of preparation of evidence and Court hearings and therefore, as Mr Kimmins puts it, vast sums of public money. Importantly, you have also saved victims the additional indignity of having to relive their trauma by giving evidence about it.

In addition to the cases of Harman and Bulger, which Mr Kimmins referred to me in support of the proposition, that timely pleas of guilty and cooperation with the authorities, are appropriate matters to be taken into account in mitigation of the sentence, in the case of Burley, Justice of Appeal McPherson said this with reference to the plea of guilty in that case:

"...it is fair to say that the respondent's identity as the attacker was subsequently established in such a way as to render conviction practically inevitable. Nevertheless, it is not unknown for persons facing an inevitable outcome to plead not guilty and insist on a trial. The advantage of his guilty pleas in saving public expense and, what is more important, of sparing the victims the ordeal of a trial, with all the additional emotional stress it would impose, are therefore matters which it is legitimate to take into account in arriving at the appropriate penalty in this instance."

If this is so, I consider that both your plea of guilty and your cooperation with the authorities are circumstances of mitigation which it is appropriate for me to take into account in determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

In relation to your remorse, although there may be an element in it of you being sorry for yourself in circumstances in which you know you have been caught and exposed and that you will now receive a lengthy gaol term of at least 10 years, even on your counsel's submissions resulting in a requirement by law of a serious violent offenders declaration to serve 80 percent of the sentence, in addition to your tears in the interview, the three experienced mental health practitioners have all assessed you as demonstrating general remorse and empathy. Of those practitioners, I know more of Dr Lawrence than the others. I consider that given her experience, she is not a person who would easily be fooled.

She says at paragraph 6.4 that, with reference to the record of interview that you engaged in and which she had had access to, she noted that you were remorseful and emotionally distressed. She also referred to you extending a formal apology to the victims. Also at paragraph 20.12, she said that:

"Since his detection, Luke Colless has begun to fully acknowledge the extent of his sexual aberrations, accept full responsibility for them, has displayed genuine remorse, as well as acceptance of responsibility for his actions. He is capable of empathy."

This is also supported by your apology, that I have mentioned, in the interview with the police. This was an apology to the victims, the police and your family and you did so again through Mr Kimmins yesterday when he read out from the document that you had prepared and your apology yesterday, I note, also extends to the general public. You said in that apology yesterday that you accept that whatever punishment you receive today is deserved.

Your remorse is a matter that you are entitled to have taken into account in mitigation. I also give you the benefit of your good work history, your lack of prior convictions, your enrolment in the "New Beginnings Ministry Training Institute" as a distance education student, and Mr Read's reference in which he speaks of the significant changes he has seen in your attitude to life and behaviour since coming to gaol.

Mr Kimmins also refers to the fact that the rapes are based on digital penetration which do not carry risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and that, although serious, he submits they were at the lower end of the range of severity for rape offences. He refers to the fact that the penetration was not penile either vaginally or anally and there was no attempt to commit oral rape. He refers to the absence of any weapon and the fact that there are two occasions out of this 11 only where you used gratuitous violence, involving three punches on each occasion.

He refers to there being no permanent physical or life threatening injuries to the victims and there was only one occasion where you made a threat to kill. He referred me to the fact that you made no degrading comments, other than possibly "bitch" to one of the victims. There were also, he says, no intimidatory threats to prevent them reporting the incidents and there was no theft of the belongings of the victims, importantly including no theft of their identification documents.

In doing that, he is comparing your conduct to several of the other cases that were referred to me yesterday in some of which life imprisonment and others in which 20 years' imprisonment or slightly more have been imposed. Those of course are the authorities that the DPP relies on. He submits in relation to those authorities, they all involve more serious circumstances.

In support of the submission that the appropriate range for your conduct is 10 to 14 years' imprisonment, he has referred me to cases on maintaining a sexual relationship with children, many of whom were raped or otherwise dealt with in a deviant sexual manner in the course of the offending.

In relation to the reliance on the maintaining a sexual relationship with a child cases, I agree with Mr Moynihan that they are not comparable cases because it is a different type of offending concerned with a breach of trust which is not ordinarily attended by violence and is not ordinarily committed in public, whereas serial rape such as you have committed is committed in the community and therefore causes more widespread damage.

As he submits, in this case, for example, there are 11 victims who have been the subject of violent sexual conduct in public and they have been injured physically, including, in some cases, to their genitals, and also injured psychologically. In relation to the submitted distinction between digital and penile penetration, again, as the Director of Public Prosecutions submits, the starting point is what the law says. Starting with the statute, if one commits rape, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. That is the case whether the rape be committed by a penis, a digit or an object. He says it is not a question of one being more aggravated than the other, but it depends on all the circumstances.

As the President of the Queensland Court of Appeal said in the case of Walk that I read from yesterday, while cases of penile-vaginal or penile-anal penetration will often be more serious and attract heavier penalties than cases involving only digital penetration, the appropriate sentence in each case will depend on its own circumstances. Relevant exacerbating factors include whether the complainant is a child, whether violence has been used, the physical and psychological effect of the offence on the victim and whether the offender has relevant criminal history.

The other judges, one of whose comments I read out yesterday, took the same view. In this case, the exacerbating factors are those serious aspects of your offending which I referred to previously, especially that the digital penetrations, albeit for a short time, which is what you needed to satisfy your sexual urges, were part of a course of conduct by a predatory serial rapist who has used violence and caused physical injuries but, more particularly, lasting traumatic damage to the victims, including particularly in the case of the 18 year old Burleigh Headlands victim, a genital injury which involved bleeding, and that in addition to those five digital penetrations, there were five other incidents in which you assaulted the victims with the intent to rape, and the other case involved a sexual assault.

On this basis, putting aside the cases that Mr Kimmins refers to, I proceed to consider Mr Moynihan's submission that this course of conduct falls into the worst category, so that notwithstanding your plea and the other factors in mitigation, only life imprisonment gives appropriate weight to the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and the primacy that has to be given to protecting the community.

Considering the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the cases relied on by the DPP, and appreciating that it was not necessary to envisage the worst possible example of this crime in order to impose the maximum penalty, I am not satisfied that this case, which doesn't involve the use of a weapon, and with one exception where there has been no threats to kill and where, on the other hand, there is remorse and where you are showing some insight and a strong motivation to undergo rehabilitation and have promising prospects of rehabilitation, according to Dr Lawrence, if you successfully complete the sexual offending therapy programme, falls into the worst category of case.

By way of comparison, in Jackson the victims were menaced by a knife or a screwdriver. In a number of cases he uttered threats to subdue their resistance. He also forced them to disclose personal intimate details and submitted them to degrading treatment of the most bestial kind. Unlike you, he was convicted at a trial. In page 3 of the judgment of the Chief Justice in that case, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, he said this:

"In the course of records of interview, which his Honour stated were clearly accepted by the jury from their verdicts in the particular cases, his descriptions of the attacks made upon his victims were callous and disrespectful in the extreme. In the circumstances, his terms of description bespoke a complete absence either of remorse or respect for the victims. The offence were deliberately planned and constituted a systematic series of attacks."

So he, unlike you, demonstrated no remorse. Despite the callousness and disrespect to which you showed these victims during the course of your offending, that cannot be said of your cooperation in the records of interview from the 21st of July onwards.

In Atwell it is not said that a weapon was used, although a knife was often used to gain entry to homes. But that case involved 11 separate incidents between, according to the decision, December 1997 and January 1998, although the prosecution schedule says 13 months. From a reading of the decision it would appear to be one month.

Those 11 separate incidents involved burglaries of the homes of women aged 59 to 86 who, the Court said, must have been selected in advance. He held a pillow over the faces of five women and he subjected them to rough and painful treatment of the genitalia.

Justice of Appeal McPherson said in that case at pages 9 to10, "Here the most serious features of the offences in this case are the large number of the victims attacked during a comparatively short period of time and more specifically the fact that the victims were older or elderly women who were attacked in the sanctity of their own homes. The fact that the applicant plainly went out of his way to plan these offences must also count very heavily against him. If women, and particularly elderly women, are not to be secure in their homes then it is difficult to see where they can hope to be safe" and that is a factor which appears particularly relevant to the decision that the Court ultimately came to in that case.

I note that also in that case his Honour said on page 10, "It is true that by the appellant's plea of guilty the victims avoided the trauma of having to relive in the witness box at trial the experiences they had gone through, but it can I think also be said that the pleas of guilty enabled the applicant himself to escape the experience of being the focus of publicity and attention throughout a trial that would have lasted a good many days. It is a factor that counts, in my view, not only in his favour that he pleaded guilty, but may also, in cases like this, be one which would save him from extensive hostility and unpleasantness. He was in fact apprehended through extensive and intensive detection work and identified as the perpetrator through DNA analysis, which has probably made his plea of guilty of somewhat less value than it otherwise would have been."

Although, having said that for completeness, in your case I have concluded in your favour that because of your cooperation it was not necessary for the authority to undertake that analysis and I cannot proceed on the basis that you would have been identified by DNA in the other cases because I simply don't know.

In addition in that case - that is to say in Atwell's case - he had a prior history of eight wilful exposure offences for which he was on probation at the time he committed the offences. He was also suffering from a depressive disorder. Unlike you, he lacked insight into his problem and without this his behaviour problems were not likely to be solved. In those circumstances it was not really possible to say if he would offend again. He was unwilling to recognise what he had to do to reform himself and, again, those features that I have just mentioned cannot be said of you.

While it is not simply a matter of distinguishing your circumstances from those cases I consider that these factors demonstrate that your case is not in the worst category of cases. In Watcho, although he pleaded guilty to only two counts of rape, he had an extensive history of rape and break and enter offences. He was serving a term of imprisonment for rape at the time and committed the offences while an escaped prisoner serving 10 years for a rape offence.

Both cases involve housebreaking and deprivation of liberty. In one he threatened a 58 year old woman with a metal pipe and her hands and feet were tied. In the other he also picked up a weapon in response to the victim trying to protect herself by picking up a knife. He punched both of the victims. He stole money from the handbag of one of the victims. In relation to the second victim he threatened to cut her throat. He also took her car keys and drove off with her, so that he was also charged with deprivation of liberty and, having done so, more sexual assaults occurred in bushlands until she was able to escape.

He had a severe personality disorder with narcissistic and anti-social traits. His chance of reoffending appeared high. Again, I consider there are a number of distinguishing features such that I do not consider that your case comes within the worst category for this type of offending.

In the case of Hornby he, unlike you, was also convicted after a trial. He had a serious criminal history which included violence. Abduction was involved in the three rapes. Knives were used with the first two complainants who were aged 15 and 18 years. He threatened to kill them and the 18 year old was forced to take medication to sedate her to facilitate his conduct. He referred to or showed photos of a corpse of a person he claimed to have killed.

The third complainant was 67 and as a result of his treatment she suffered a compressed spinal fracture. The Court of Appeal recognised that that was the worst case. He also stole $1,300 from her. He was a person who was regarded as presenting a danger and the trial Judge said that any suggestion he should be paroled should cause the authorities to think long and hard before recommending his release.

Again, I consider there are factors present in that case that are not present here and which warranted that case being placed in the worst category of this type of offending.

The last case that I wish to refer to on this point is that of Breckenridge. It demonstrates that it is not simply a question of the number of offences which determines whether a case is in the worst category because in that case the Court of Appeal set aside a 30 year sentence of imprisonment and substituted a sentence of imprisonment for life in a case where the defendant had pleaded guilty to one offence of rape. However, that was a brutal rape of a nine year old child. It was so serious that the DPP summary is in these terms. "Her childish body was split by the force used. The child required surgical repair." He had twice previously sexually molested women. Reference was made to his apparent inability to control his sexual desires when he had consumed alcohol.

In my view, it is a case of extreme brutality against a child and it was that extreme brutality which warranted that one count of rape being considered as being within the worst category. However, in your case taking into account your circumstances of mitigation, including your early plea of guilty, your cooperation with the administration of justice, your remorse and apology and the opinion that, subject to your undertaking the Sexual Offenders' Program successfully, your risk of reoffending would be low, I do not consider that this case comes within the worst category of cases of this type, as is referred to in the authorities.

Therefore, I do not consider that life imprisonment is the appropriate penalty. In this case there is only one case which I have been referred to which involves what I would regard as comparable offending to you and that is the case of Buckley.

However, before I come to it I should say something about the decision in Burley. Burley was the 17 and a half year old who was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment with a parole recommendation after 10 years. In that case he had been sentenced by the Court at first instance to 16 years' imprisonment and that sentence was increased by the Court of Appeal to 20 years.

He had entered an early plea of guilty to what was described as an overwhelming case and he had no criminal history. It was, as Mr Kimmins drew to my attention yesterday, a particularly bad case of offending directed at four victims with weapons - a knife in each case - threats to kill, causing grievous bodily harm to one victim, threats to sexually assault the victim's children in one case, going through a wallet and writing down one of the victim's phone numbers, stealing money and even spitting saliva into the mouth of the victim. However, he was 17 years of age at the time of the offending.

As Justice of Appeal McPherson said in Atwell, having been a member of the Court in Burley's case, said at page 9, "The offences there as to which, as I recall, there were four victims were associated with greater violence. The offender was only 17 and a half years old at the time and there was a difficulty in increasing the sentence above the level imposed because of what had been said at the sentence hearing before the matter came on appeal."

As his Honour had said earlier in Burley's case, "Nevertheless, the respondent's relative youth and his unfortunate background are matters that ordinarily attract consideration in fixing sentences even for serious offences and, until that process is forbidden directly by legislation, it is proper to allow some weight to those factors, even in a case of offences like these."

Although the Court in Burley was not optimistic about his chances of not reoffending and the psychiatric opinion was more pessimistic on this score than in the present case I consider that his age was a significant factor which impacted on the sentence in that case.

And there was also the other matter that Justice of Appeal McPherson referred to, namely the difficulty in increasing the sentence above the level imposed because of what had been said at the sentence hearing before the matter came on appeal. I also note that when increasing his effective sentence from 16years to 20 years this was an Attorney-General's appeal to which a more moderate approach is taken to sentencing by the Court of Appeal if it increases a penalty.

Therefore, I consider that that case is distinguishable and the most relevant case is that of Buckley which involved three separate offences over a nine month period. I say this because although one of the offences did involve a burglary after which there was a sodomy and digital rape on a 67 year old woman the other two involved attacking women as they walked home. The complainants were 15 and 20 years of age.

In relation to the 20 year old complainant, she was walking alone to her home at Dalby at 4 a.m. She was grabbed from behind and forced to the ground. He then used the strap of her shoulder bag around her neck to choke her and force her to an area where he anally and vaginally raped her. He threatened to kill her if she moved as he left.

The other victim, the 15 year old girl, was attacked as she walked alone through Toowoomba at 1 a.m. He chased her and then knocked her down to the ground from behind, causing her to fall and suffer a fractured femur. He then raped her vaginally and anally.

He had two previous convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm and he had also been convicted in 1989 and 1985 of being in an enclosed yard without lawful excuse. Unlike you, he was in a high risk group of future offending if I compare what was said in that case against what Dr Lawrence, in particular, said in this case.

In my view, taking the decision in Buckley's case into account, what makes your course of conduct more serious, without again taking an approach dictated by the comparative number of offences involved, is that you were engaged in a course of conduct in which you violently and sexually attacked 11 women in public places, including suburban streets, over a 27 month period. In 10 of the cases it was your clear intention to rape the women and satisfy your urges. In five of the cases you succeeded.

As I have said, you were a predatory serial rapist who took steps to facilitate your offending by driving to places where you knew the opportunity would present itself for you to satisfy your urges and places which generally you knew would afford maximum opportunity of not being disturbed and escaping without being identified. To facilitate this you kept a change of clothes in the car.

As I have said, these were cowardly attacks which showed a callous disregard for the dignity and the welfare of the women involved, which caused at least the eight of them who provided victim impact statements devastating and continuing psychological trauma. It was conduct from which you did not voluntarily desist, only stopping when you were caught.

Having regard to the principles of denunciation, deterrence and the primacy of protecting the community and having taken into account your early plea of guilty, your cooperation with the administration justice and apology and other factors in mitigation in determining that your case was not in the worst category of this type of offending and giving those matters such weight as is possible in relation to your ultimate sentence, I consider that the appropriate way in which to approach your offending is to impose sentences on the rape charges that represent the totality of your criminality and which I consider are proportionate to that criminality and to impose lesser terms for the other offences.

I see no reason in this case in adopting this approach to distinguish between the rape offences so far as the penalty is concerned. All sentences that I am about to impose will be served concurrently.

Accordingly you are convicted and a conviction is recorded on each count.

On each of the counts of rape - counts 2, 7, 11, 16 and 18 - you are sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. On the counts of assault with intent to commit rape - counts 4, 6, 8, 10 and 15 - you are sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. On the counts of sexual assault - counts 1, 3, 5, 9, 12 and 17 - you are sentenced to five years' imprisonment. On the counts of assault occasioning bodily harm - counts 13 and 14 - you are sentenced to three years' imprisonment. As I have said, all of those sentences are to be served concurrently.

I state that the dates that you have been held in presentence custody for these offences and for no other reason is from and including the 16th of July 2008 to and including the 28th of August 2009, being a total of 408 days. I declare that 408days to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.

I declare that in relation to the convictions for rape and assault with intent to commit rape that they are to be convictions of a serious violent offence in each case. I note that under section 182, subsection 2 of the Corrective Services Act that for a prisoner such as you, who is serving imprisonment for a serious violent offence, your parole eligibility date is the day after the day on which you have served the lesser of either 80 per cent of your term of imprisonment for a serious violent offence or 15 years. Therefore, given your total effective sentence this will be 15years in your case.

I note that under section 181, subsection 3 that if you have been sentenced to service life imprisonment your parole eligibility date would also have been 15 years in the absence of any other order, although the difference is that with respect to the fixed sentence that I have imposed you can hope for parole at that point, which you might not be entitled to expect if a life sentence was imposed.

Of course, the issue of your release on parole will very much depend on the result of your compliance with and completion of the High Intensity Sexual Offenders' Program. I recommend that this program be made available to you by Queensland Corrective Services as a matter of priority.

Is there anything further, Mr Moynihan?

MR MOYNIHAN: Nothing, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Anything further, Mr Kimmins?

MR KIMMINS: No, your Honour. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. In those circumstances Court is adjourned.