R v C - [1996] QCA 234

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 234
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 160 of 1996

Brisbane [R. v. C]

THE QUEEN

v.
C

(Applicant) Appellant
Williams J
Ambrose J
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 19/07/1996
Judgment of the Court

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Set aside the sentences and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to two years probation and 60 hours community service in respect of all offences. A condition should be attached to the probation requiring the applicant to attend counselling in relation to his alcohol dependence.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - juvenile - whether detention

appropriate.

Counsel:	Mr A. J. Rafter for appellant
Mr D. Meredith for respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for respondent
Hearing Date:	9 July 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 19/07/1996

The applicant was 14 when in August last year he was reprimanded in the Children's Court for possession of a dangerous drug and a pipe used in smoking a dangerous drug. Apparently this was not a chastening experience.

On 12 September the applicant and another juvenile broke into a house and stole a camera, jewellery, a mobile phone, and electrical equipment. The applicant destroyed the phone. In the next two days, and again on 18, 19 and 20 September, the applicant was involved in other offences when houses were broken into and property stolen.

Previously, the applicant had attended high school. On 26 September he came upon a teacher from his school at a bus stop near the school. He insulted and pushed the teacher.

On 29 September the applicant was involved in another breaking, entering and

stealing.

On 3 October the applicant and other young males unlawfully used a motor

On 5 October the police spoke to the applicant. He admitted his role in the
taking of a vehicle. At the same time, he spoke of his involvement in all the offences
committed before the teacher was assaulted, naming co-offenders. His fingerprints
were found at the scene of the 29 September offence.

vehicle. During the escapade, the vehicle was damaged in a collision. accompanied by another young man, stole a small quantity of alcohol and two sports bags from a house after entering through the front door.

The value of the losses resulting from the offences was a little more than $17,000; about half related to the damaged car.

Guilty pleas were entered in respect of all the offences.

After a pre-sentence report prepared in January was considered, the applicant was sentenced to four months detention, with an order for release after two months. This sentence related to the offences other than those committed on 29 September and 23 November, which had been separately charged. For the latter offences, the applicant was awarded probation and placed on a good behaviour bond for two years. The judge ordered that no convictions be recorded.

It is contended that the sentences are manifestly excessive because detention

was ordered.

The applicant…

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 C

Details

AGLC: R v C [1996] QCA 234
Case: [1996] QCA 234
Decision Date: 19/07/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland reviewed the case of The Queen v. C, a juvenile offender sentenced to detention for various offences including breaking and entering, theft, and assault. The applicant, who was 14 years old at the time of the offences, had a history of behavioural issues and had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Despite these challenges, the applicant had shown signs of improvement and remorse, and had engaged in counselling for alcohol dependence. The Supreme Court had sentenced the applicant to four months detention, which the applicant and the appeal court considered manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were appropriate under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, particularly considering the general principle that detention should be a last resort for juveniles and the importance of rehabilitation. The appeal court needed to determine if the detention order was justified under the circumstances and whether alternative sentencing options, such as probation and community service, would better serve the interests of justice and the applicant's rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found that the detention order was inappropriate given the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation and the availability of community-based sentences. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation over punishment, particularly for a juvenile with a supportive family and a history of engagement in counselling. The court held that the detention order did not align with the statutory principles that prioritise non-custodial sentences and the shortest appropriate period of detention. The appeal court concluded that the sentences were manifestly excessive and set aside the detention order, replacing it with two years probation and 60 hours of community service, with a condition that the applicant attend counselling for alcohol dependence.

This decision underscores the importance of considering individual circumstances and statutory principles when sentencing juveniles, ensuring that the sentences are proportionate and conducive to the offender's rehabilitation.

Orders