R v DBR - [2019] QCA 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBR [2019] QCA 218

PARTIES:

R
v
DBR
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 248 of 2018
DC No 1 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Kingaroy – Date of Sentence: 27 August 2018 (McGill SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTILY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, on his plea of guilty, was sentenced to probation for three years with the recording of a conviction, for one count of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under 12 years – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending, but was sentenced as an adult at the age of 19 – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history, being one count of rape – where it was submitted that a conviction should not have been recorded – whether the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SPECIFIC ERROR – where the applicant, on his plea of guilty, was sentenced to probation for three years with the recording of a conviction, for one count of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under 12 years – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending, but was sentenced as an adult at the age of 19 – where it was submitted that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of specific error – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge failed to refer to sections 183 and 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and the sentencing principles contained therein – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge placed too much weight on the desirability of the applicant becoming a “reportable offender” under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld) and otherwise failed to consider relevant matters concerning recording or electing not to record the conviction – whether any such specific error occurred such that the sentencing discretion miscarried

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, followed
R v BCO [2016] 1 Qd R 290; [2013] QCA 328, considered
R v Kelly[2009] QCA 185, followed
R v LAL [2019] 2 Qd R 115; [2018] QCA 179, considered
R v SBQ[2010] QCA 89, considered

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant
J A Geary for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Philippides…

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 DBR

Details

AGLC: R v DBR [2019] QCA 218
Case: [2019] QCA 218
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DBR involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under 12 years. The applicant, who was 16 years old at the time of the offence, was sentenced as an adult at the age of 19, receiving a three-year probation sentence with the recording of a conviction. The applicant contested the sentence, arguing that the recording of the conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive, and that there was a specific error in the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was a specific error in the sentencing process. The applicant argued that the recording of a conviction should not have occurred given his age at the time of the offence, and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing principles, including those in the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld).

The court examined the arguments and found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that there was no specific error in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the relevant legislation and factors, including the applicant's criminal history and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court further found that the recording of a conviction was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the applicant's age at the time of sentencing.

The application for an appeal against the sentence was refused. The court's decision upheld the original sentence and conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 DBR [2019] QCA 218
PARTIES:	R v DBR (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 248 of 2018 DC No 1 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Kingaroy – Date of Sentence: 27 August 2018 (McGill SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	18 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTILY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, on his plea of guilty, was sentenced to probation for three years with the recording of a conviction, for one count of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under 12 years – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending, but was sentenced as an adult at the age of 19 – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history, being one count of rape – where it was submitted that a conviction should not have been recorded – whether the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SPECIFIC ERROR – where the applicant, on his plea of guilty, was sentenced to probation for three years with the recording of a conviction, for one count of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under 12 years – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending, but was sentenced as an adult at the age of 19 – where it was submitted that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of specific error – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge failed to refer to sections 183 and 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and the sentencing principles contained therein – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge placed too much weight on the desirability of the applicant becoming a “reportable offender” under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld) and otherwise failed to consider relevant matters concerning recording or electing not to record the conviction – whether any such specific error occurred such that the sentencing discretion miscarried Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, followed R v BCO [2016] 1 Qd R 290; [2013] QCA 328, considered R v Kelly[2009] QCA 185, followed R v LAL [2019] 2 Qd R 115; [2018] QCA 179, considered R v SBQ[2010] QCA 89, considered
COUNSEL:	J McInnes for the applicant J A Geary for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent