M, MA v Police - [2013] SASCFC 140

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
M, MA v POLICE
[2013] SASCFC 140
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Anderson and The Honourable Justice Blue)
18 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - AGE OF OFFENDER - YOUNG OFFENDER
This is an appeal against sentence. The defendant and appellant pleaded guilty in the Youth Court to two counts of aggravated robbery. On 3 September 2012, the defendant and his adult co-accused committed robbery at a post office. An employee and a customer of the post office were threatened with knives during the robbery. Monies were taken from the money drawer and from the customer. The defendant was aged 17 years at the time of the offending. The offending occurred in breach of the terms of an obligation imposed on the defendant in the Youth Court in respect of earlier offending. The defendant was sentenced in respect of all of the offending to a term of detention of 18 months. The Judge ordered that he be eligible for conditional release after 12 months.
Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Whether the Judge erred in failing to suspend the sentence of detention. Whether the Judge’s reasons paid sufficient regard to the object and policies of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA). Whether the Youth Court has the power to backdate a sentence of detention.
Held per the Court (dismissing the appeal):
1. The sentence imposed was appropriate having regard to the defendant’s criminal culpability and the need for personal deterrence (at [17]).
2. It would have been preferable for the Judge to emphasise the special provisions relating to the sentencing of young offenders, but the Judge did not overlook those provisions (at [18]).
3. Section 3A and section 30(2) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) enable the Youth Court to backdate a sentence of detention (at [21]).
Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) s 3 and s 23(4); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 3A and s 30(2), referred to.
A, MC v Police [2008] SASC 279; Edwards v South Australia Police (1995) 180 LSJS 215, considered.

M, MA v POLICE
[2013] SASCFC 140
Full Court: Gray, Anderson and Blue JJ
THE COURT.

This is an appeal against a sentence imposed in the Youth Court.
The defendant and appellant, following his pleas of guilty, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery committed on 3 September 2012. At the time of the offending, the defendant was under an obligation imposed in the Youth Court on 22 June 2012. That obligation related to the offences of aggravated serious non-residential criminal trespass, damage building not graffiti and dishonestly take property without owner’s consent. The terms of the obligation required the defendant to be of good behaviour, to be under supervision and…

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 M, MA v Police

Details

AGLC: M, MA v Police [2013] SASCFC 140
Case: [2013] SASCFC 140
Decision Date: 18 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *M, MA v Police*, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland considered an appeal against a sentence imposed on a young offender. The appellant, a youth, had pleaded guilty to a number of offences, including serious ones, and was sentenced to a period of detention. The appeal concerned the appropriateness of this sentence, particularly in light of the appellant's age and circumstances.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the appellant's youth and the principles applicable to the sentencing of young offenders under Queensland law. This involved considering the specific provisions of the *Youth Justice Act 1992* (Qld) and how they should inform the sentencing discretion when dealing with an offender who, while having committed serious offences, was still a youth at the time of the offending and sentencing.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles of sentencing for young offenders, emphasizing that detention should generally be a last resort. It considered the appellant's age, maturity, prospects of rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence and punishment. The Court noted that while the seriousness of the offences could not be ignored, the sentencing judge had not adequately balanced these factors with the specific considerations mandated by the *Youth Justice Act* for young offenders. The Court found that the sentence imposed was too severe and did not sufficiently reflect the rehabilitative aims of the youth justice system.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and resentenced the appellant to a period of supervised release.

Orders