R v B

Case [1995] QCA 231 9 June 1995

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 231
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 551 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. B]

T H E Q U E E N

v.
B

(Applicant)

____________________________________________________________________

McPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
de Jersey J.

Judgment delivered 09/06/1995

Joint reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. and de Jersey J., separate concurring
reasons of Pincus J.A.

____________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED.
APPEAL ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RECORD OF THE SUBJECT
CONVICTIONS BE DELETED.

____________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - whether recording of conviction under the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 was a discretionary matter or an automatic consequence of the orders for detention and immediate release - whether to exercise discretion - seriousness of offence, youth of applicant, no prior criminal convictions, co-operation with police, guilty plea, unsettled childhood.

Ss. 120, 121, 124, 125 Juvenile Justice Act 1992.

Counsel:	Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant. Ms L Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing date:04/04/1995.

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA and de JERSEY J

Judgment delivered 09/06/1995

The applicant is a 15 year old boy. When he was aged 14,

he committed three offences: breaking, entering and stealing at

a school tuckshop, armed robbery of a store while in company and with violence, and receiving cigarettes. His mother brought the offences to the notice of the police, which led to his being charged and pleading "guilty".

The learned District Court Judge sentenced him to 18 months

detention, with an immediate release order to run for three

months. He made those orders under the Juvenile Justice Act
1992.

The breaking, entering and stealing involved the applicant and two other persons breaking into the tuckshop of a school by smashing a window. They also damaged the front door. They stole products worth about $50. The complainants of the armed robbery were a married couple who operated a convenience store at Toowoomba. They were about to close the store when the applicant and another person, Joseph Tapau entered the shop. They were wearing balaclavas they had made from old clothes.

Tapau was armed with a .22 rifle and the applicant with a 10 cm

knife. They told the female complainant to get down on to her

knees, whereupon the applicant tied her hands behind her back

with electrical cable as he held the knife in one hand, close to her shoulder. Tapau told the male complainant to put money into

a bag, as he held the gun to the male complainant's head. The gun was in fact not loaded and there was no ammunition for it.

They stole $379. The receiving charge relates to 10 packets of cigarettes found by the police in the applicant's room. He admitted having received them from Tapau, who had told them that they were the result of a break-in of a service station which he

and two others had committed.

The armed robbery in…

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 [1995] QCA 231
Case: [1995] QCA 231
Decision Date: 9/06/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v B involved the respondent, a young person, who was charged with an offence and subsequently convicted. The dispute centred on whether the recording of the conviction under the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 should be considered a discretionary matter or an automatic consequence of the orders for detention and immediate release. The matter was heard in a court of law with jurisdiction over juvenile justice matters.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the recording of a conviction was a discretionary matter under sections 120, 121, 124, and 125 of the Act, or if it was an automatic consequence of the orders for detention and immediate release. The court also needed to consider whether, in exercising its discretion, it should take into account factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the youth of the applicant, the lack of prior criminal convictions, the applicant's co-operation with the police, the guilty plea, and the applicant's unsettled childhood.

In its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the recording of a conviction was not an automatic consequence of the orders for detention and immediate release, but rather a matter within the court's discretion. The court then exercised its discretion and determined that, in light of the factors mentioned, it would not record the conviction. The court found that the youth of the applicant, lack of prior criminal convictions, co-operation with the police, guilty plea, and unsettled childhood were significant factors that warranted the exercise of discretion in this case.

The court's final order was that the conviction would not be recorded, taking into account the factors outlined in the decision. This decision provides guidance to courts in similar cases involving the exercise of discretion in relation to the recording of convictions under the Juvenile Justice Act 1992.

Orders