R v CAC - [2006] QCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v CAC [2006] QCA 191
PARTIES: R
v
CAC
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 102 of 2006 DC No 183 of 2005
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON: 5 June 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 5 June 2006
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J
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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – where applicant 16 years old at time of offence – where applicant sentenced to two and a half years detention with no early release order made under Juvenile Justice Act for causing grievous bodily harm by using thin blade knife to inflict stabbing wounds – where applicant had no previous convictions – where applicant claimed that sentencing judge acted on errors of fact – where applicant claimed that sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to underlying principles in Juvenile Justice Act that a child should be given a custodial sentence as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances- whether sentence manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 227, Schedule 1 items 16 and 17
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1, [2001] HCA 67,
cited
R v Lewis; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2003]
QCA 133; CA Nos 319 & 339 of 2002, 25 March 2003, cited
COUNSEL: P J Davis with M Harrison for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Bell Miller for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MACKENZIE J: The applicant who was aged about 16 years and one month at the time of the offence, seeks leave to appeal against an order of two and a half years' detention with no order under section 227 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 for

early release imposed following his conviction by a jury of
grievous bodily harm. The applicant will be required to serve
70 per cent of the term before release. There were no special
circumstances that required reduction below that figure.

The offence occurred at Southbank on the evening of the Riverfire Fireworks on 28 August 2004. The applicant's girlfriend had become involved in a dispute with his former

girlfriend. In the course of separating them he struck his had hit her.

former girlfriend who immediately complained by mobile phone
to her current boyfriend who was one of a group of youths of
which the complainant was a member who were elsewhere in the

The group, including the complainant, set off to find the person who had struck the girl. The complainant, having been given information that led him to believe that the group that included the applicant was…

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 CAC

Details

AGLC: R v CAC [2006] QCA 191
Case: [2006] QCA 191
Decision Date: 5/06/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who was 16 years old at the time of the offence, was sentenced to two and a half years detention for causing grievous bodily harm by using a thin blade knife to inflict stabbing wounds. The sentencing judge did not make an early release order under the Juvenile Justice Act. The applicant had no previous convictions and appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge acted on errors of fact and failed to give proper weight to the underlying principles in the Juvenile Justice Act that a child should be given a custodial sentence as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in the Juvenile Justice Act and the circumstances of the offence. The court noted that the applicant had no previous convictions and was 16 years old at the time of the offence. The court also noted that the applicant had expressed remorse and had shown good behaviour while in detention. However, the court considered that the nature and circumstances of the offence were such that a custodial sentence was appropriate. The court considered that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court noted that the principles of sentencing in the Juvenile Justice Act required that a custodial sentence be imposed as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances. The court considered that the sentencing judge had given proper weight to these principles in imposing the sentence. The court considered that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the applicant.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

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 CAC [2006] QCA 191
PARTIES:	R v CAC (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 102 of 2006 DC No 183 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON:	5 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – where applicant 16 years old at time of offence – where applicant sentenced to two and a half years detention with no early release order made under Juvenile Justice Act for causing grievous bodily harm by using thin blade knife to inflict stabbing wounds – where applicant had no previous convictions – where applicant claimed that sentencing judge acted on errors of fact – where applicant claimed that sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to underlying principles in Juvenile Justice Act that a child should be given a custodial sentence as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances- whether sentence manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 227, Schedule 1 items 16 and 17
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1, [2001] HCA 67, cited R v Lewis; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2003] QCA 133; CA Nos 319 & 339 of 2002, 25 March 2003, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Davis with M Harrison for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bell Miller for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent