Police v G, PA - [2007] SASC 78

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
POLICE v G, PA
[2007] SASC 78
Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice David
7 March 2007
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS
Prosecution appeal against decision of Youth Court judge to refer matter to a family conference - respondent charged with aggravated robbery whilst in possession of an offensive weapon - matter referred to a family conference pursuant to Young Offenders Act 1993 (YOA) s 17(2) - appeal directed to Full Court - consideration of appeal provisions in Youth Court Act 1993 (YCA) s 22 - Held: referral of matter to family conference is an interlocutory order and appeal lies to single judge of the Supreme Court - by consent, issue on original appeal dealt with by way of reservation of question of law for the consideration of the Full Court pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1935 s 49(1).

MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - SENTENCING - RELEVANT FACTORS - FIRST OFFENDERS AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Question of law referred to Full Court - whether Youth Court judge had power under YOA s 17(2) to refer subject matter of charge of aggravated robbery to be dealt with by family conference - whether court's power to refer matter to family conference restricted to a "minor offence" as defined in YOA s 4 - whether power to refer major indictable offence to family conference - Held: Youth Court's power under YOA s 17(2) not restricted to minor offences or offences which are not major indictable offences.
Young Offenders Act 1993 s 4, 6, 7,(1), 8, 11, 12, 17(2), 21; Youth Court Act 1993 s 22, 22(2)(b); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 3; Supreme Court Act 1935 s 49(1), referred to.
R v Police (2002) 224 LSJS 210, applied.
H v Police (1998) 198 LSJS 331; Police v CB & Others [1999] SASC 371, distinguished.
SA Police v W (1995) 64 SASR 408, discussed.

POLICE v G, PA
[2007] SASC 78
Full Court: Doyle CJ, Duggan and David JJ

DOYLE CJ. I agree that the question of law reserved by Duggan J for the consideration of the Full Court should be answered “Yes”. I agree with the reasons of Duggan J for that answer.
DUGGAN J. The respondent appeared before the Youth Court charged on an information which alleged that, on 9 July 2006 at Tea Tree Gully, he and another youth committed aggravated robbery whilst in possession of an offensive weapon and robbed Drew Clark of three pizzas, a bag and money.
Aggravated robbery is a major indictable offence.
The respondent was aged 16 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged offence.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence on 19 July 2006. The presiding Youth Court magistrate then ordered a social background report.
Subsequently, the matter was listed…

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 Police v G, PA

Details

AGLC: Police v G, PA [2007] SASC 78
Case: [2007] SASC 78
Decision Date: 7 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The prosecution appealed against a decision of a Youth Court judge to refer a matter to a family conference. The respondent, charged with aggravated robbery while in possession of an offensive weapon, had their matter referred to a family conference under section 17(2) of the Young Offenders Act 1993. The appeal was directed to the Full Court, considering the appeal provisions in section 22 of the Youth Court Act 1993. The court held that the referral of the matter to a family conference was an interlocutory order, and an appeal lay to a single judge of the Supreme Court. By consent, the issue on the original appeal was dealt with by way of a reservation of a question of law for the consideration of the Full Court, pursuant to section 49(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935.

The question of law referred to the Full Court was whether the Youth Court judge had the power under section 17(2) of the Young Offenders Act 1993 to refer the subject matter of the charge of aggravated robbery to be dealt with by a family conference. The issue was also whether the court's power to refer the matter to a family conference was restricted to a "minor offence" as defined in section 4 of the Young Offenders Act 1993, or if it included major indictable offences. The Full Court held that the Youth Court's power under section 17(2) of the Young Offenders Act 1993 was not restricted to minor offences or offences which were not major indictable offences. The court's power to refer matters to a family conference extended to major indictable offences.

Orders