Dad convicted of sexual torture, rape of sons; gets reduced sentenced as justices feared "crushing" him (Brisbane, Australia)

Golly, we wouldn't want to "crush" this poor dear with a longer prison sentence, would we?

Talk about misplaced sympathies...

UNNAMED DAD

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/grotesque-father-jailed-for-raping-sexually-torturing-his-sons-as-children-and-adults/story-fnihsrk2-1227541735717

‘Grotesque’ father jailed for raping, sexually torturing his sons as children and adults September 23, 2015 9:05pm
Sean Fewster The Advertiser

A MAN who forced his wife and sons to live a “grotesque” transient lifestyle so he could sexually torture them without fear of exposure deserves 43 years in jail, a court says.

In a judgment published online, the Court of Criminal Appeal overturned a minimum eight-year jail term imposed, by the District Court, upon the man for his crimes.

Justices Tom Gray, John Sulan and David Lovell unanimously agreed the man deserved to serve 43 years, but reduced that term to 20 years so as not to “crush” him.

They noted that, even with the reduction, their decision makes it possible the man, 67, will die in jail.

“He deliberately subjected his family to a nomadic existence (and) purposely isolated them so his acts of physical and sexual abuse could be committed without fear of exposure,” they said.

“The offending involved repeated sexual abuse when (his son) was a child ... he was then subject to rape on two occasions when an adult ... (the man) acted to reassert his dominance.

“In our view, the penalty imposed ... inadequate, and manifestly so, considering the grotesque circumstances of this case.”

The man, whose identity is suppressed, was convicted of the persistent sexual exploitation of his two sons, as well as raping each of them after they became adults.

When he appealed against his conviction and sentence, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions argued his penalty was too lenient and should be increased.

In their judgment, Justices Gray, Sulan and Lovell rejected the man’s appeal, saying his offending occurred against “a backdrop” of “subjugation and control”.

They said the man’s offending began in the 1970s, when he constantly moved his family between states to prevent them forming social ties or obtaining proper educations.

He would force his sons to dress in their mother’s clothing before sexually assaulting them, sometimes tying them up or using objects to abuse them.

“He abused his family physically, sexually, emotionally and financially,” they said. “It was frequent, violent and punitive ... it became more violent when the complainants tried to resist his sexual advances.”

They said the offending continued through to 2006, when the sons were in their early 30s.

Justices Gray, Sulan and Lovell agreed with prosecutors that the original sentencing judge should not have allowed the man to serve some of his jail time concurrently.

They said concurrency should not have been employed when some of the offences were against the sons as children, and others after they were adults.

They said his crimes against one son warranted a 26-year term, with a further 17 years for the offending against his other son.

“If the above sentences were imposed, he would face a total term of imprisonment of 43 years ... such a lengthy term of imprisonment would be crushing,” they said.

“In the circumstances, the principle of totality should be applied to avoid a crushing result.

“We sentence the defendant to one term of 20 years and fix a non-parole period of 12 years.”