LJL (a child) -v- MASON [2013] WASC 465

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 465
Case No:	SJA:1127/2013	Heard:	4 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	19/12/13
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LJL (a child) RYAN LEONARD MASON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Juvenile sentenced to detention Multiple offences of burglary Whether total effective sentence of 3 months' detention breached totality principle Whether prospects of rehabilitation considered Whether written reasons for imposing detention were required
Legislation:	Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 120
Case References:	DBW (a child) v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 206 MC (a child) v The Queen [2003] WASCA 205 P (a child) v Thompson [2011] WASC 120 TL (a child) v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 173

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : LJL (a child) -v- MASON [2013] WASC 465 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 4 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1127 of 2013 BETWEEN : LJL (a child)

Appellant

AND

RYAN LEONARD MASON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P HOGAN

File No : CC 459 of 2013, CC 460 of 2013, CC 559 of 2013, CC 566 of 2013, CC 567 of 2013, CC 568 of 2013, CC 569 of 2013, CC 570 of 2013, CC 571 of 2013, CC 625 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Juvenile sentenced to detention - Multiple offences of burglary - Whether total effective sentence of 3 months' detention breached totality principle - Whether prospects of rehabilitation considered - Whether written reasons for imposing detention were required

Legislation:

Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 120

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S A Gabriel

Respondent : Ms T McArthur

Solicitors:

Appellant : Stephen Gabriel

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

DBW (a child) v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 206
MC (a child) v The Queen [2003] WASCA 205
P (a child) v Thompson [2011] WASC 120
TL (a child) v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 173

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 7 November 2013, the appellant, who is a juvenile, was sentenced in the Children's Court to a total effective term of 3 months' detention. That sentence was imposed in respect of three offences of aggravated burglary, two offences of burglary, one offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and one offence of criminal damage. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2 In essence, the issue is whether the total effective sentence was too long having regard to the appellant's youth, the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charges and that he has good prospects of rehabilitation. In particular, it is contended that the…

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 LJL (a child) v Mason

Details

AGLC: LJL (a child) v Mason [2013] WASC 465
Case: [2013] WASC 465
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LJL, a juvenile appellant, challenged the 3-month detention sentence imposed on him by the Children's Court of Western Australia for multiple offences, including aggravated burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm. The primary contention was whether the total effective sentence was excessively long, considering the appellant's age, his guilty plea, and his potential for rehabilitation. It was argued that the appellant's positive response to a recent youth conditional release order indicated good prospects for rehabilitation, making immediate detention inappropriate. The court examined whether the magistrate properly exercised his discretion in light of the principles set out in the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), particularly the emphasis on rehabilitation and the principle that detention should be a last resort. The court noted the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's history of reoffending while under supervision. The magistrate's decision to impose immediate detention was deemed to be within his discretion, given the gravity of the crimes and the need for punishment and deterrence.

The court also considered whether the magistrate was required to provide written reasons for imposing the detention sentence, as mandated by s 120 of the Young Offenders Act. The appellant argued that the absence of written reasons rendered the sentence invalid. However, the court found that even if this argument was valid, it did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as the sentence imposed was deemed appropriate. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that none of the grounds presented had a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders