SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v AL [2003] QCA 189
PARTIES:
R
v
AL
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 29 of 2003
DC No 480 of 2002
DC No 517 of 2002
DC No 518 of 2002DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at TownsvilleDELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
8 May 2003DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 May 2003
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – DETENTION IN TRAINING CENTRE AND OTHER REFORMATORY SENTENCES – where applicant convicted of 39 offences – where applicant on probation at time of offending – where presentence report indicated that applicant showed little inclination to address his offending behaviour – where sentenced to 18 months detention with a further probation order for a period of two years – whether inappropriate to impose period of probation after a reasonably lengthy period of detention
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 121C
COUNSEL:
B G Devereaux for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 28 January 2003 to some 39 charges which were contained in three indictments presented to the Court. Those charges included one of arson, one of burglary, one of attempted burglary, 14 unlawful entry or use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, two attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, 10 of stealing, three of receiving, and three of wilful damage. The offences were committed between 16 March and 21 October 2002.
The most serious of the offences was that of arson. That offence was committed on 15 May 2002. The applicant and another person were playing near an excavator, they entered it, soaked rags with petrol from its fuel tank and set it alight. It was destroyed. Its value was $50,000.
The offences were made more serious because the applicant had been before the Townsville Childrens Court on 2 April 2002 and then had been placed on probation for 12 months with a community service order requiring him to perform 200 hours of community service. Those orders were made with respect to a large number of property offences which were dealt with in the Childrens Court on that date.
The applicant was aged between 15 and 16 at the time the offences were committed. He was 16 at the time of sentence having been born on 11 August 1986.
A presentence report was obtained prior to the sentence being imposed. It indicated that attempts by the probation case worker to have the applicant address his offending behaviour through probation were met with resistance. The report said that:
"After completing only…
Continue reading R v Al
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Al [2003] QCA 189
- Case
- [2003] QCA 189
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was inappropriate. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Al's history of offending, and his suitability for rehabilitation. The court considered the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders and the objectives of sentencing in such cases. The court also considered the presentence report and the submissions made by both parties.
The court found that the sentence was not inappropriate. The court noted that Al had a history of offending and had shown little inclination to address his behaviour. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and was appropriate to achieve the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court also found that the probation order was necessary to provide ongoing support and supervision to Al and to prevent reoffending. The court rejected the argument that it was inappropriate to impose a period of probation after a reasonably lengthy period of detention.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
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.