R v BBN - [2008] QCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BBN [2008] QCA 84

PARTIES:

R
v
BBN
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 339 of 2007
DC No 4 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 March 2008

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to four years detention to be released after serving fifty per cent of the term – where the complainant was prevented from pursuing his boxing career due to the infliction of injuries by the applicant by means of a rock or brick – where the applicant was 15 years and six months old at the time of the offence – where the applicant had a substantial criminal history, including offences of violence – whether the primary judge took proper account of the applicant’s youth, background and plea of guilty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

The Queen v S [1999] QCA 499, distinguished

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the order he proposes.

MUIR JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced in the District Court at Gladstone on 20 November 2007 to four years detention with an order that he be released after serving 50 per cent of that term. The applicant, an indigenous youth, was 15 years and six months old at the time of the offence and was 16 years and nine months at the time of sentencing.

His prior criminal history was substantial. It included:

(a) A conviction on 13 January 2004 for common assault;
(b) A conviction on 5 April 2005 on one count of torture;
(c)Convictions on 7 March 2007 for assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company;

(d) Convictions on 9 May 2007 for assaults occasioning bodily
harm.

For the torture offence, the applicant was ordered to be detained for two years, to be released from custody after serving 50 per cent of the term ordered to be served. He was released from detention in April 2006 and committed the subject offence on 24 August 2006. He also committed a number of offences after the subject offence, including the assaults of which he was convicted on 7 March and 9 May 2007. On…

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 BBN

Details

AGLC: R v BBN [2008] QCA 84
Case: [2008] QCA 84
Decision Date: 11 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v BBN, the applicant, BBN, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. BBN had pleaded guilty to one charge of grievous bodily harm (GBH) and was sentenced to four years detention with a non-parole period of fifty per cent. The victim, who was prevented from pursuing his boxing career due to the injuries inflicted by BBN, suffered significant harm as a result of the attack, which was carried out with a rock or brick. At the time of the offence, BBN was 15 years and six months old and had a substantial criminal history, including offences of violence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge appropriately considered BBN's youth, background, and plea of guilty when determining the sentence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to assess the balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, taking into account the applicant's age and criminal history. BBN argued that the sentence was too harsh, while the state contended that the sentence was justified given the severity of the offence and BBN's criminal history.

The court concluded that the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant factors, including BBN's youth, background, and plea of guilty. The sentence was deemed to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and appropriate in light of BBN's criminal history. The court found that the sentence did not constitute a manifest excess and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning was that the primary judge had taken into account the significant impact of the offence on the victim and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was considered to be a fair reflection of the circumstances of the case.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and no further appeal was permitted. The original sentence of four years detention with a non-parole period of fifty per cent remains in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 BBN [2008] QCA 84
PARTIES:	R v BBN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 339 of 2007 DC No 4 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 March 2008
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to four years detention to be released after serving fifty per cent of the term – where the complainant was prevented from pursuing his boxing career due to the infliction of injuries by the applicant by means of a rock or brick – where the applicant was 15 years and six months old at the time of the offence – where the applicant had a substantial criminal history, including offences of violence – whether the primary judge took proper account of the applicant’s youth, background and plea of guilty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive The Queen v S [1999] QCA 499, distinguished Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent