R v B - [1997] QCA 188

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 203 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. B]

THE QUEEN

(Applicant)
Dowsett J.
Mackenzie J.
Helman J.

Judgment delivered 27 June 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SENTENCE BELOW SET ASIDE AND A PROBATION ORDER FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS CONTAINING THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 132(1) JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 1992 SUBSTITUTED. CONVICTIONS NOT RECORDED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - juvenile offenders - application by juvenile for leave to appeal against sentence of detention - whether detention appropriate sentence for juvenile offender who had not had benefit of community based orders.

Counsel:Mr. D. Lynch for the applicant
Mr. J. Hunter for the respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for the applicant
Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 18 June 1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 203 of 1997

Brisbane

BeforeDowsett J.
Mackenzie J.
Helman J.

[R. v. B]

THE QUEEN

Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 27 June 1997

On 10 March this year the applicant, who was born on 10 April 1981 and so is a child as defined in s.5 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, came before the Southport District Court on two counts of stealing from the person (counts 1 and 2), one count of robbery (count 3), and two counts of robbery with personal violence (counts 4 and 5). He pleaded not guilty to count 1 and guilty to the remaining counts. The case was then adjourned and came on again on 29 April when a nolle prosequi was entered on count 1 and the applicant was discharged on that count. The learned sentencing judge, having received a pre-sentence report dated 18 April 1997 from a Family Services officer of the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care, then proceeded to hear submissions concerning the appropriate orders to be made on the counts to which the applicant had pleaded guilty. Having done so his Honour sentenced the applicant to detention for twelve months.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
The offences for which the applicant was sentenced were all committed in and around the Pines shopping centre at Elanora on the Gold Coast in the middle of 1996. The victim of the offence alleged in count 2, which was committed on 14 June 1996, was a school boy from whom the applicant stole $5.00 in the shopping centre carpark. The victim of the robbery alleged in count 3, which was committed on 19 June 1996, was a pensioner. She was in the shopping centre carpark when the applicant ran up behind her, struck her on the right shoulder, and snatched her handbag from her right hand. He stole the handbag, a purse, and $120.00 in cash. Immediately after the incident 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 R v B

Details

AGLC: R v B [1997] QCA 188
Case: [1997] QCA 188
Decision Date: 27 June 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, B, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the Southport District Court, seeking leave to appeal against the sentence and arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offence, was sentenced to twelve months' detention for four counts of robbery and one count of stealing from the person. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, which granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence of detention was appropriate for the juvenile offender, considering his age, the nature of the offences, and his rehabilitation prospects. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the sentencing judge had given sufficient consideration to the general principles of juvenile justice, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992.

The Court of Appeal found that, while the sentencing judge had considered the general principles of juvenile justice and the seriousness of the offences, the judge had not given sufficient weight to three important aspects of the case. These aspects included the substantial improvement in the applicant's behaviour since his release on bail, his acceptance of his mother's authority and return to her care, and the fact that he had not had in the past the benefit of the supervision and guidance provided pursuant to a probation order. The Court of Appeal concluded that an outcome less severe than the last resort of an order for detention was called for.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against the sentence, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed below, and substituted a probation order for a period of two years containing the requirements provided for in s.132(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court further determined that convictions should not be recorded.

Orders