R v D

Case [2003] QCA 32


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v D [2003] QCA 32

PARTIES:

R
v
D
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 375 of 2002
DC No 163 of 2002
DC No 175 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.  Appeal allowed only to the extent of setting aside the order recording convictions in all cases, except in relation to the count of armed robbery where the order recording the conviction stands

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where juvenile applicant convicted of armed robbery, fraud, wilful damage, stealing and other property offences while on probation – where juvenile applicant sentenced to six months detention – whether detention was appropriate – whether convictions ought to have been recorded 

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 109(2)(e), s 125

COUNSEL:

B G Devereaux for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. A:DAVIES J  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Cullinane J and with the orders he proposes.

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  I agree with the reasons of Cullinane J and with the orders proposed.

  1. CULLINANE J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court at Mackay following his pleas of guilty to a number of offences contained in two indictments.

  1. In one indictment he was charged with:

(a)         seven counts of entering a dwelling with intent;
(b)         eight counts of stealing;
(c)         one count of receiving;
(d)        one count of entering premises and stealing;
(e)         one count of wilful damage;
(f)         one count of fraud;
(g)         one count of armed robbery in company.

  1. In addition, he faced two counts on another indictment, namely:

(a)         one count of entering premises and stealing;
(b)         one count of attempted entering premises with intent.

  1. These offences were committed between 29 November 2001 and 29 July 2002.

  1. The applicant is a child born on 27 July 1987.  All of the offences were committed when he was 14 except for one of the counts of stealing.

  1. On each count, the applicant was sentenced to six months detention and 12 months probation under the Juvenile Justice Act.  He had served eight days in pre-detention custody.

  1. He has now completed almost 70 per cent of the term of detention and should be released in about two weeks time. 

  1. The applicant had a criminal history which appears at pp 22 and 23 of the record.  He had appeared before the Childrens Court on some seven occasions in relation to a number of property offences.

  1. In February 2001, he was given a probation order for some nine months…

Continue reading R v D

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v D [2003] QCA 32
Case
[2003] QCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v D involves a juvenile applicant who had been convicted of armed robbery, fraud, wilful damage, stealing, and other property offences while on probation. The applicant was sentenced to six months detention. The applicant sought leave to appeal against both the sentence and the order recording convictions in all cases. The central legal issues in this case were whether the detention sentence was appropriate and whether convictions ought to have been recorded in all cases.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for juveniles, emphasising the importance of rehabilitation and proportionality. It noted that the applicant was a young person who had already been on probation at the time of the offences. The court found that the detention sentence was severe and questioned whether it was appropriate given the circumstances. Furthermore, the court examined whether the recording of convictions in all cases was necessary, particularly considering the applicant's age and the need for rehabilitation. The court determined that while the armed robbery conviction was serious enough to warrant recording, the other convictions might have been handled differently to better align with the rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice.

Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order recording convictions in all cases, except in relation to the count of armed robbery. The order recording the conviction for armed robbery was upheld due to its severity. The sentence of six months detention was not directly addressed in the appeal outcome, leaving the sentence itself unchallenged in this particular appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of setting aside the order recording convictions in all cases, except in relation to the count of armed robbery where the order recording the conviction stands

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

DAVIES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DAVIES J

Full text does not contain this section.