K v Police - [1999] SASC 407

K v POLICE
[1999] SASC 407

Full Court: Doyle CJ, Mullighan and Wicks JJ

DOYLE CJ. This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a Judge of the Youth Court.
The appellant pleaded guilty in the Youth Court to two offences.
The first offence was larceny of a bicycle valued at $500. The second offence was armed robbery, involving the taking of $1,000.
The Judge sentenced the appellant to detention for 12 months for the second offence. For the first offence, she convicted the appellant without any further penalty. It is submitted that the penalty imposed for the second offence is excessive.
The offences were committed in October 1998. The appellant had just turned 17 years of age at the time of the offences.
I begin with the armed robbery. The Judge sentenced the appellant on the basis that he committed the armed robbery at the urging of his girlfriend, who was somewhat older than him. It appears that the appellant had been in a relationship with her for some time, and was under her influence to a considerable degree. The relationship was important to him. The Judge accepted this. The appellant and his girlfriend were both regular users of heroin. She urged the appellant to commit the offence, so that she could obtain heroin.
The end result was that the appellant went to a pharmacy, wielding a machete, and demanded money. He was handed $1,000. A number of people were in the pharmacy at the time. The victim impact statements provided by these people indicate that they have suffered a noticeable adverse reaction to what must have been a frightening incident.
The offence was carried out in an amateurish fashion, in the sense that the appellant was located a relatively short time afterwards at a unit at which he lived. The appellant immediately admitted his guilt, and at the same time admitted to the theft of the bicycle.
In my opinion the offence can only be regarded as very serious. The fact that the appellant was quickly located and arrested, does not detract from that. There is no reason to think that the victims of the offence, while it was taking place, had any reason to think that the appellant was other than serious in his intent. The offence would not have seemed amateurish to the victims.
The appellant has a number of convictions, including convictions for assault, breaking and entering, larceny and minor drug offences. On previous occasions when he has appeared before the Youth Court, he has been granted appropriate leniency. He has been offered assistance and guidance from various sources. On 27 February 1997 he entered into a bond, as a result of another offence, to be of good behaviour for 18 months. Within about two weeks of that he broke and entered premises and breached the bond.
The appellant has had what the Judge described as a “difficult, unstable and damaging childhood.” I fully agree. It is not necessary to repeat the sad details.…

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 K v Police

Details

AGLC: K v Police [1999] SASC 407
Case: [1999] SASC 407
Decision Date: 24 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of K v Police, the appellant appealed against a sentence imposed by a Judge of the Youth Court. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two offences: the first being the larceny of a bicycle valued at $500, and the second being armed robbery, which involved the taking of $1,000. The Judge sentenced the appellant to detention for 12 months for the armed robbery offence, and convicted the appellant without any further penalty for the larceny offence. The appeal argued that the penalty imposed for the armed robbery offence was excessive.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the sentence imposed by the Youth Court was appropriate and whether the period of detention was excessive. The court had to consider the statutory object of securing appropriate care, protection, and guidance for the youth, as well as the need to bring home to the youth the consequences of a breach of the law, and the protection of the community.

The court found that the appellant had committed a very serious offence and that the Judge was entitled to take the view that the appellant needed to be made aware of the consequences of breaking the law. The court also found that the need for personal deterrence and the protection of the community supported the decision to impose a sentence of detention. The court was not satisfied that the sentence imposed was excessive and considered that the Youth Court was usually better placed than the Full Court to assess what was appropriate in terms of sentencing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

Orders