R v BBX - [2011] QCA 8

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BBX [2011] QCA 8

PARTIES:

R
v
BBX
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 165 of 2010
DC No 18 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant child pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court to an offence of wilful damage – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history involving a number of property offences – where the first entry in the applicant’s criminal history resulted in a youth justice conference and no further action was taken – where the applicant argued the first entry on the applicant’s criminal history was inadmissible by s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred in considering the first entry on the applicant’s criminal history

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant sought to introduce evidence that the first entry in the applicant’s criminal history related to a youth justice conference – where new evidence may be admitted if it shows the sentence was manifestly excessive – where the new evidence could only establish manifest excess if it demonstrated the first entry to be inadmissible by s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the new evidence should be admitted

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – where s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) provides that a decision to take no further action following a youth justice conference does not form part of a child’s criminal history – where the applicant contended that s 166(11) rendered an entire entry on the applicant’s criminal history inadmissible – whether the applicant’s construction was consistent with the literal and contextual meaning of the words of s 166(11)

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 161, s 163, s 165, s 166, s 166(11)

R v GT [2005] QCA 478, considered
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, [1996] QCA 242, considered

COUNSEL:

J P Benjamin for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1] CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

[2] FRASER JA: On 16 June 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court…

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 BBX

Details

AGLC: R v BBX [2011] QCA 8
Case: [2011] QCA 8
Decision Date: 11/02/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v BBX, the applicant, a child, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Children's Court of Queensland. The applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence of wilful damage and had a criminal history that included several property offences. The central issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in considering an entry from the applicant’s criminal history that resulted from a youth justice conference, which the applicant argued should be inadmissible under section 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld).

The court examined whether the primary judge acted on the wrong principle by considering the entry from the youth justice conference. The applicant argued that section 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act rendered this entry inadmissible because a decision to take no further action following a youth justice conference does not form part of a child’s criminal history. The court assessed whether this interpretation of section 166(11) aligned with the literal and contextual meaning of the statute. The court held that the primary judge did not err in considering the entry, as it was consistent with the statutory provisions.

Furthermore, the court considered whether the applicant's attempt to introduce new evidence about the youth justice conference was justified. The court determined that the new evidence could only establish manifest excess if it demonstrated that the first entry on the applicant's criminal history was inadmissible under section 166(11). Since the court found that the entry was admissible, the new evidence did not support a finding of manifest excess. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

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.

CITATION:	R v BBX [2011] QCA 8
PARTIES:	R v BBX (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 165 of 2010 DC No 18 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	11 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 February 2011
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant child pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court to an offence of wilful damage – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history involving a number of property offences – where the first entry in the applicant’s criminal history resulted in a youth justice conference and no further action was taken – where the applicant argued the first entry on the applicant’s criminal history was inadmissible by s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred in considering the first entry on the applicant’s criminal history CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant sought to introduce evidence that the first entry in the applicant’s criminal history related to a youth justice conference – where new evidence may be admitted if it shows the sentence was manifestly excessive – where the new evidence could only establish manifest excess if it demonstrated the first entry to be inadmissible by s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the new evidence should be admitted STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – where s 166(11) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) provides that a decision to take no further action following a youth justice conference does not form part of a child’s criminal history – where the applicant contended that s 166(11) rendered an entire entry on the applicant’s criminal history inadmissible – whether the applicant’s construction was consistent with the literal and contextual meaning of the words of s 166(11) Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 161, s 163, s 165, s 166, s 166(11) R v GT [2005] QCA 478, considered R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, [1996] QCA 242, considered
COUNSEL:	J P Benjamin for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent