R v DBU

Case [2021] QCA 51

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBU [2021] QCA 51

PARTIES:

R
v
DBU
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 124 of 2020
DC No 40 of 2020
DC No 11 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 1 June 2020 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 February 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Lyons SJA

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence be granted.

2.   The appeal be allowed.

3.   The sentences below be set aside, to the extent that convictions were recorded.

4.   No convictions be recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ detention for the offence of armed robbery, and six months’ detention for assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, to be served concurrently – where the applicant was to serve 50 per cent of those periods of detention and convictions were recorded – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal with respect to the recording of convictions for those offences – whether the recording of a conviction together with the imposition of a period of detention rendered the sentences manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12, s 152
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150(2), s 183, s 184

R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10, applied
R v Brown; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1994] 2 Qd R 182; [1993] QCA 271, cited
R v KU & Ors; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (No 2) [2011] 1 Qd R 439; [2008] QCA 154, cited
R v SCU[2017] QCA 198, applied

COUNSEL:

S R Lewis with M P Dixon for the applicant (pro bono)
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MORRISON JA:  I have read the reasons of Lyons SJA and agree with those reasons and the orders her Honour proposes.

  2. McMURDO JA:  I have read the reasons of Lyons SJA and I entirely agree with them.

  3. The sentencing of a child for an offence, like the sentencing of an adult offender, will commonly involve a tension between the several purposes for which sentences may be imposed, namely punishment, rehabilitation, personal and general deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the community.  As was said in R v SCU,[1] the balancing of those considerations will be different in cases of child offenders, because by many provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (“the Act”), rehabilitation will be given a priority which it will not always have for an adult offender.

    [1][2017] QCA 198 at [151]-[153] per McMurdo JA (Morrison JA agreeing).

  4. Section 184(1) of the Act prescribes the relevant considerations for the exercise of a court’s discretion to…

Continue reading R v DBU

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DBU [2021] QCA 51
Case
[2021] QCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by the applicant, DBU, who was convicted of armed robbery and assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months' detention for armed robbery and six months' detention for the assault, to be served concurrently. The sentences were to be served for 50 per cent of their terms, and convictions were recorded for both offences.

The legal issue before the court was whether the recording of convictions together with the imposition of a period of detention rendered the sentences manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the recording of convictions was disproportionate to the sentences imposed, and that the sentences were therefore manifestly excessive.

The court found that the recording of convictions together with the imposition of a period of detention rendered the sentences manifestly excessive. The court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal history and that the sentences imposed were relatively short. The court also noted that the applicant had already served a significant portion of the sentences imposed. The court concluded that the recording of convictions was disproportionate to the sentences imposed and that the sentences were therefore manifestly excessive.

The court granted the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal. The court set aside the sentences to the extent that convictions were recorded and ordered that no convictions be recorded. The court's orders were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be granted, the appeal be allowed, the sentences be set aside to the extent that convictions were recorded, and no convictions be recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be granted.

2. The appeal be allowed.

3. The sentences below be set aside, to the extent that convictions were recorded.

4. No convictions be recorded.

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

On the basis of the matters I have already referred to, I would re-exercise the sentencing discretion by ordering that no convictions be recorded.Conclusion I would order:1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be granted.2. The appeal be allowed.3. The sentences below be set aside, to the extent that convictions were recorded.4. No convictions be recorded.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.