JKL v The Queen

Case [2011] NTCCA 7

JKL v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 7

PARTIES:   JKL

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:   CA 24 of 2010 (21011927)

PRONOUNCED:   24 May 2011

PUBLISHED:   9 June 2011

HEARING DATE:   24 May 2011

JUDGMENT OF:   SOUTHWOOD & KELLY JJ,

MARTIN (BR) J

APPEAL FROM:   MILDREN J

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Whether there was a failure to give adequate weight to a plea of guilty – utilitarian value of plea – no tariff – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed

Youth Justice Act (NT) s 4(f) and s 4(n)

Albert v R [2009] NTCCA 1; DF v The Queen (2002) NTCCA 13; R v Goodwin [2003] NTCCA 9; Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39; R v Morton (2010) 27 NTLR 114; Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; Spencer v R [2005] NTCCA 3; Staats v The Queen (1998) 123 NTR 16; Wright v R (2007) 19 NTLR 123, followed

Cameron v the Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; R v Jabaltjari (1989) 64 NTR 1; R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395, considered

R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225; R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383, distinguished

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:   J Hunyor

Respondent:   R Coates

Solicitors:

Appellant:   North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency

Respondent:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:   Sou1105

Number of pages:   17

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

JKL v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 7

No. CA 24 of 2010 (21011927)

BETWEEN:

JKL

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM:     SOUTHWOOD and KELLY JJ and MARTIN (BR) J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Published 9 June 2011)

SOUTHWOOD J and MARTIN (BR) J:

Introduction

  1. On 6 October 2010 the appellant who is a youth was sentenced to a period of two years and six months detention with a non-parole period of one year and three months for the crime of aggravated robbery of a motor vehicle while armed with a knife.  The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life.

  2. The appellant appealed against his sentence.  The appeal was dismissed on 24 May 2011 following submissions.

  1. The grounds of appeal were:

    1.    The sentencing Judge erred in failing to give adequate weight to the plea of guilty and in reducing the discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty by having regard to the strength of the prosecution case and the applicant’s lack of remorse. 

    2.    The sentence was manifestly excessive.

  2. Following are our reasons for dismissing the appeal.

    The subjective circumstances of the appellant

  3. The appellant is a 15 year old youth who was born on 19 March 1996.  He was 14 years of age when he committed the crime of aggravated robbery. 

  4. The appellant has had a very unfortunate life.  His…

Continue reading JKL v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
JKL v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 7
Case
[2011] NTCCA 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In JKL v The Queen, the Northern Territory Court of Appeal considered an appeal against sentence. The appellant, JKL, had been convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. JKL appealed this sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to his plea of guilty and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had properly assessed the utilitarian value of JKL's guilty plea, considering his extensive criminal history which included offences such as aggravated unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, and various assaults. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed reflected an appropriate discount for the plea of guilty, and if not, whether the overall sentence was so disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender as to be considered manifestly excessive.

Southwood and Kelly JJ dismissed the appeal. The Court found that while JKL had pleaded guilty, the utilitarian value of this plea was diminished by his significant criminal history and the nature of the offence, which involved the use of knives and threats of violence against two individuals. The Court noted that there was no "tariff" for such offences and that the sentencing judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including the plea of guilty, the objective seriousness of the aggravated robbery, and JKL's prior convictions. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The offender has a criminal history which already extends for four pages. His prior offending includes the aggravated unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, enter a building with intent, damage to property with a loss over $5000, assault a member of the police force, aggravated assault, and assault a member of the public service. He has been sentenced to detention before he was sentenced to detention for the crime of aggravated robbery to which this appeal relates. The facts of the offending On the evening of 7 April 2010 the appellant was in care and living in a house in Wanguri. Also present in the house were the victims, a Family and Children’s Services worker and a Family and Children’s Services security guard. At about midnight the appellant entered the office area of the house with the intention of stealing the keys to a motor vehicle used by Family and Children’s Services so that he could drive to Adelaide. The first victim (“AB”) was in the office at the time and the appellant asked him for a telephone charger. While AB was looking for a charger, the appellant removed a knife, approximately 30 cm in length, from a kitchen cabinet. He held the knife above his head, with the blade pointing downwards, and he said to AB, “I am going to take the car and if you don’t let me I’m going to stab you.” AB stepped back away from the appellant in fear of his safety. While he did so, AB attempted to calm the appellant who said, “Don’t move. Stay there or I’ll stab you.” The appellant then picked up a second knife from the cabinet with his left hand. He raised that knife above his head as if he was ready to stab AB and said words to the effect, “I’m going to take the car keys. If you move, I will stab you.” AB remained stationary and the appellant picked up the set of car keys with his left hand while still holding the second knife. He then walked out of the office. As he left, the appellant yelled at AB, “If you try and stop me, I will stab you.” The appellant left the office and walked along the hallway towards the second victim (“CD”) who was going to the office because he heard the appellant yelling. When he was within three metres of CD he held the knife in his right hand above his head and the knife in his left hand near his left hip and said, “Don’t move, don’t get in my way, I will stab you.” CD began moving backwards to avoid the appellant, who followed him into the kitchen and then went to a sliding door which he unlocked. He said to CD, “Don’t move, don’t get in my way or I will stab you.” Once outside the house the appellant got into a Toyota Avensis which was owned by the Northern Territory Government and reversed out of the drive way. He drove along Gsell Street, turned right into Vanderlin Drive and left onto Trower Road. At the intersection of Bagot Road and McMillans Road the appellant drove through a red traffic light at a speed of 100 km per hour. The appellant drove to the United Petroleum service station on Bagot Road. He parked the motor vehicle and refuelled it. He then got back into the driver’s seat and started the motor vehicle. The gears of the motor vehicle got stuck in reverse so the appellant drove the motor vehicle in reverse at speed down the incorrect side of Bagot Road.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SOUTHWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SOUTHWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.