R v A and S; ex parte - [1999] QCA 503

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v A and S; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 503

PARTIES:
R
v
A AND S (Respondents)

EX PARTE: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 292 of 1999; CA No 293 of 1999
DC No 352 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Attorney-General's appeal against sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 3 December 1999

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 5 November 1999

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Williams J (diss)

ORDER: APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – property offences and robbery in company with personal violence (home invasion) committed by juvenile co-offenders – juvenile offenders with no criminal history and good antecedents – whether non-custodial sentence manifestly inadequate – non-custodial sentence consistent with recommendations of pre-sentence report – non-custodial sentence consistent with s 4(c) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 – balance between rehabilitation and deterrence and protection of community

R v Breeze [1999] QCA 303; CA No 105 of 1999, 6 August 1999, considered
R v B [1997] QCA 188; CA No 203 of 1997, 27 June 1997, considered
R v F and P CA Nos 112 and 114 of 1997, 2 May 1997, considered
R v H CA No 209 of 1995, 31 July 1995, considered

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – property offences and robbery in company with personal violence (home invasion) committed by juvenile co-offenders – whether combination of sentences of probation and detention with immediate release order could be imposed for separate offences under Juvenile Justice Act 1992

Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s 120, s 121, s 121A, s 121B, s 121C
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, s 92(1)(b)

R v Evans [1958] 3 AllER 673, distinguished
R v Hughes [1999] 1 QdR 389, distinguished
R v Lihou, ex parte Attorney-General [1975] QdR 44, distinguished
R v M; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 442; CA No 251 of 1999, 2 November 1999, distinguished

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – whether Juvenile Justice Act 1992 prescribes sentencing regime different to principles which apply under Penalties & Sentences Act 1992

Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s 4, s 109

R v F and P CA Nos 112 and 114 of 1997, 2 May 1997

COUNSEL: Ms L Clare for the appellant
Mr A J Kimmins for the respondent A
Mr A J Glynn SC for the respondent S

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
McLaughlin Solicitors for the respondent A
Price & Roobottom for the respondent S

McMURDO P AND THOMAS JA: The respondents pleaded guilty in the District Court at Southport on 28…

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 R v A and S; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v A and S; ex parte [1999] QCA 503
Case: [1999] QCA 503
Decision Date: 3 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two defendants, A and S, who were convicted of property offences and robbery in company with personal violence, arising from a home invasion. The Attorney-General appealed against the non-custodial sentences imposed on the defendants, arguing that the sentences were manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The defendants, both juveniles with no criminal history and good antecedents, had been sentenced in accordance with the recommendations of a pre-sentence report and section 4(c) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992.

The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the non-custodial sentences were manifestly inadequate and whether they were consistent with the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence as well as the protection of the community. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offences against the defendants' personal circumstances and the recommendations of the pre-sentence report. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the balance between rehabilitation and deterrence, as well as the protection of the community, was appropriately achieved by the sentences imposed.

The court held that the non-custodial sentences were not manifestly inadequate, given the defendants' personal circumstances, the recommendations of the pre-sentence report, and the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. The court found that the sentences appropriately balanced the need for rehabilitation with the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The sentences were consistent with the statutory objectives and took into account the defendants' good antecedents and the absence of any prior criminal history.

The appeals against sentence were dismissed, affirming the original sentences imposed by the lower court. The court concluded that the non-custodial sentences were appropriate in the circumstances and that the balance between rehabilitation and deterrence, as well as the protection of the community, had been properly considered in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v A and S; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 503
PARTIES:	R v A AND S (Respondents) EX PARTE: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 292 of 1999; CA No 293 of 1999 DC No 352 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Attorney-General's appeal against sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 1999
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 November 1999
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Williams J (diss)
ORDER:	APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – property offences and robbery in company with personal violence (home invasion) committed by juvenile co-offenders – juvenile offenders with no criminal history and good antecedents – whether non-custodial sentence manifestly inadequate – non-custodial sentence consistent with recommendations of pre-sentence report – non-custodial sentence consistent with s 4(c) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 – balance between rehabilitation and deterrence and protection of community R v Breeze [1999] QCA 303; CA No 105 of 1999, 6 August 1999, considered R v B [1997] QCA 188; CA No 203 of 1997, 27 June 1997, considered R v F and P CA Nos 112 and 114 of 1997, 2 May 1997, considered R v H CA No 209 of 1995, 31 July 1995, considered CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – property offences and robbery in company with personal violence (home invasion) committed by juvenile co-offenders – whether combination of sentences of probation and detention with immediate release order could be imposed for separate offences under Juvenile Justice Act 1992 Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s 120, s 121, s 121A, s 121B, s 121C Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, s 92(1)(b) R v Evans [1958] 3 AllER 673, distinguished R v Hughes [1999] 1 QdR 389, distinguished R v Lihou, ex parte Attorney-General [1975] QdR 44, distinguished R v M; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 442; CA No 251 of 1999, 2 November 1999, distinguished CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – whether Juvenile Justice Act 1992 prescribes sentencing regime different to principles which apply under Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s 4, s 109 R v F and P CA Nos 112 and 114 of 1997, 2 May 1997
COUNSEL:	Ms L Clare for the appellant Mr A J Kimmins for the respondent A Mr A J Glynn SC for the respondent S
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant McLaughlin Solicitors for the respondent A Price & Roobottom for the respondent S