BB v The Queen - [2014] NTCCA 13

BB v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 13
PARTIES:BB

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CCA 25 of 2013
(21310156 and 21310166)

DELIVERED:  15 AUGUST 2014
HEARING DATES:  9 APRIL 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  BLOKLAND J, BARR AND HILEY JJ
APPEAL FROM:  KELLY J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence –Youth under 13 years – Aggravated robbery – Property offences – Suspended sentence of detention – Manifestly excessive term – Objective factors considered – Submissions asserting “unplanned, impulsive and unsophisticated” offending – Personal antecedents of offender significant – Age of offender – Lack of prior convictions – Weight given to guilty plea – Utilitarian value of offender’s co-operation – Appeal allowed – Resentenced – Length of suspended sentence reduced.
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) ss 5(2)(e); 40(3).
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT), ss 4(c); 69; 81(2)(b), (d); 81(5); 81(6); 82(1)(b); 83(1)(f), (i); 83(2)(b); 98(3).
Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187; Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 32; House v The King [1936] 55 CLR 49; JKL v R [2011] NTCCA 7; Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39; Nona v The Queen [2012] NTCCA 3; R v Gurruwiwi (2008) 22 NTLR 68; R v Percy [1975] Tas SR 62; R v Ryan (2006) 167 A Crim R 241; R v Wilson (2011) 30 NTLR 51; Shannon v Cassidy (2012) 31 NTLR 188; Stevens v Giersch (1976) 14 SASR 81; Whitehurst v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 11, applied.
Freiberg, Arie, Fox and Freiberg’s Sentencing, State and Federal Law in Victoria 3^rd Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2014)757, citing R v Zamagias [2002] NSW CCA 17.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I Read SC
Respondent:  D Dalrymple
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NT)
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  BLO 1408
Number of pages:  18

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
BB v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 13

No. CCA 25 of 2013 (21310156 and 21310166)
BETWEEN:

BB

Appellant

AND:

The Queen

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J, BARR AND HILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 15 August 2014)
The Court:

Introduction

This is an appeal against sentences imposed on the appellant on 24 September 2013. Leave to appeal was granted by a judge of this Court on 5 February 2014.
The appellant is a youth who was aged 12 years and 11 months at the time of committing the offences. He was 13 years old at the time of sentencing.
After pleading guilty to eight counts on an ex-officio indictment, the appellant was sentenced to a total term of detention for two years and three months, suspended forthwith. The term of two years and three months was imposed for the offence of aggravated robbery. A concurrent aggregated term of nine months detention was imposed on the remaining counts.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BB v The Queen

Details

AGLC: BB v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 13
Case: [2014] NTCCA 13
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on BB, a youth under 13 years of age, who had pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and property offences. The appeal was heard by Blokland J, Barr and Hiley JJ in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the original sentence of detention was manifestly excessive, having regard to the objective factors of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court was required to consider the weight to be given to BB's age, his lack of prior convictions, the impulsive and unsophisticated nature of the offending, and the utilitarian value of his guilty plea and co-operation with authorities.

The Court reasoned that while the offences were serious, the objective factors, particularly BB's youth and immaturity, coupled with his guilty plea and co-operation, warranted a more lenient approach than that taken by the sentencing judge. The Court applied principles of sentencing that emphasise rehabilitation for young offenders and the importance of giving significant weight to a timely plea of guilty. The Court concluded that the original sentence of detention was indeed manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied. The length of the suspended sentence of detention was reduced.

Orders