SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Cunningham [2014] QCA 88
PARTIES:
R
v
CUNNINGHAM, Luke
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 295 of 2013
DC No 256 of 2013DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Childrens Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
2 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
28 February 2014
JUDGES:
Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where juvenile applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of stealing, one count of receiving tainted property, one count of burglary and stealing, one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle and two counts of attempted armed robbery – where juvenile applicant sentenced to two years detention, with convictions recorded – whether the primary judge erred in recording a conviction against the juvenile applicant
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(3)
Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), s 3
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 183, s 184(1), s 299AR v B[1995] QCA 231, followed
R v BCN[2013] QCA 226, considered
R v Brown ; ex parte Attorney-General [1994] 2 Qd R 182; [1993] QCA 271, cited
R v L[2000] QCA 448, considered
R v WAJ[2010] QCA 87, followedCOUNSEL:
F Richards for the applicant/appellant
P McCarthy for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Daubney J and the orders he proposes.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Daubney J and with the reasons given by his Honour.
DAUBNEY J: On 12 September 2013, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Children’s Court to the following offences:
- Count 1 – Stealing
- Count 2 – Receiving Tainted Property
- Count 3 – Burglary and stealing
- Count 4 – Unlawfully using a motor vehicle
- Count 5 – Stealing
- Count 6 – Attempted armed robbery
- Count 7 – Attempted armed robbery
The applicant was sentenced on 5 November 2013. On each of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the applicant was sentenced to three months’ detention, to be served concurrently. On each of Counts 6 and 7, it was ordered that he be detained for two years, to be served concurrently. A declaration under s 227(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (“YJA”) was made for his release after serving 70 per cent of the period in detention. The learned sentencing judge ordered that convictions be recorded.
The learned sentencing judge also dealt with a breach of probation and several summary offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty. The breach was found proved, but no…
Continue reading R v Cunningham
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Cunningham [2014] QCA 88
- Case
- [2014] QCA 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate, and whether the recording of a conviction against the appellant was an error. The court noted that the appellant had a history of offending, and that the crimes committed were serious in nature. However, the court also considered the appellant's age, background, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, and that the primary judge had not erred in recording a conviction against the appellant. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances, and that the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation should be taken into account.
The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate and that the primary judge had not erred in recording a conviction against the appellant. The court noted that the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation should be taken into account when considering the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, and that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal against sentence, but dismissed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal against sentence 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.