Gympie rapist loses Supreme Court appeal against 6 year jail term

A convicted teen rapist, who abused his victim from when she was just four, has tried to convince a court he doesn't deserve to spend six years in jail.

A 29-year-old Gympie man’s attempt to appeal a six year jail term handed down after he was found guilty of raping his younger sister multiple times when they were children has been thrown out by the courts. Photo Patrick Woods / Gympie Times

A 29-year-old man found guilty of raping his younger sister multiple times when they were children has had his appeal against a six year jail term thrown out of court with the judge noting the man’s “obvious lack of remorse” for his crimes.

The man, who cannot legally be named, was found guilty in February by a Gympie District Court jury of 11 counts of rape for a series of crimes committed across almost a decade, from October 2001 to November 2010.

He was aged between 10 and 19 years at the time of his crimes.

The victim, his sister, was aged between four and 14.

The disturbing and degrading crimes involved the use of an object on one occasion, too.

He committed the crimes in multiple locations including his bedroom, a shed and once on a trip to Hervey Bay.

One of victim’s first memories of the years of abuse, according to the published Supreme Court ruling, involved her brother telling her what happened was “our little secret” and if she told anyone he would hurt her.

The man was found guilty in Gympie District Court by a jury of 11 counts of rape early in 2021.

On another occasion, when he was interrupted in the act by the sound of their father’s motorbike starting up and headed towards them, he told the victim to pretend she had fallen off her own bike.

The 29-year-old appealed the convictions on the grounds the jury had been inadequately directed about his capacity to know what he was doing given he was not yet 14 years old at the time of his crimes.

This had led to a miscarriage of justice, his lawyer said.

This claim was thrown out by Justice David Boddice, who said the man’s actions “in threatening the complainant if she told anyone … were inconsistent with the suggestion he did not know what he was doing at the time he engaged in the acts”.

An appeal against the man’s sentence was also dismissed.

His appeals to the state’s Supreme Court claiming miscarriage of justice and sentencing were thrown out, with the judge noting none of the alleged errors had been made.

Mr Boddice said there was an error in discretion and regard was needed as to what sentence he might have received had he been sentenced as a child.

Ultimately this came to the same though; Mr Boddice said the man would have received a six year jail term even then as his “offending involved using manipulative behaviours towards a much younger sister to perpetrate multiple rapes over many years”.

“There is no reason, even allowing for the extended period that has elapsed between his offending and convictions and his personal circumstances, that he ought not to be ordered to serve a term of imprisonment of six years.

This, combined with “an obvious lack of remorse”, meant there was no reason why the man should be given an earlier parole eligibility date than provided by the laws.