R v DCD; Ex parte - [2024] QCA 91

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DCD; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2024] QCA 91

PARTIES:

R
v
DCD
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 124 of 2023
DC No 7 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 23 June 2023 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Bond JA and Burns J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the respondent youth pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault, four counts of rape and one count of robbery with personal violence committed in the one episode of offending – where the respondent had been sentenced previously for multiple offences including violent offences – where the respondent was sentenced to detention for four years and six months for the most serious count of rape and lesser sentences for the other counts to be served concurrently and to be released from custody after serving 50 per cent of the detention period – where no convictions were recorded – where the appellant appeals against the sentencing judge’s discretion not to record any convictions – where the sentencing judge took into account the respondent’s age, the fact that the respondent had not previously been convicted of any sexual offending and the impact of recording a conviction would have on the respondent’s chances of finding employment and rehabilitation – whether the failure to record convictions rendered the sentence manifestly inadequate

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 148, s 150, s 183, s 184, s 246, s 276F
Youth Justice Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 21

R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General [1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10, cited
R v DBU (2021) 7 QR 453; [2021] QCA 51, cited
R v JO[2008] QCA 260, considered
R v MDD (2021) 293 A Crim R 14; [2021] QCA 235, cited
R v SCU[2017] QCA 198, considered

COUNSEL:

P J McCarthy KC, with T Hancock, for the appellant
S J Keim SC, with L D Reece, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS P AND BURNS J: The respondent who is an Aboriginal youth pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court of Queensland on 24 February 2023 to one count of sexual assault (count 1), four counts of rape (counts 2-5) and one count of robbery with personal violence (count 6). All offences were committed on 8 June 2021 against the same complainant. A pre-sentence report was ordered to be prepared. The report prepared by the respondent’s caseworker at the relevant Youth Justice Service Centre was dated 22 June 2023 (the pre-sentence report) and included a psychological assessment by the Griffith Youth Forensic Service (the…

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 DCD; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v DCD; Ex parte [2024] QCA 91
Case: [2024] QCA 91
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent youth, DCD, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault, four counts of rape, and one count of robbery with personal violence. The court sentenced DCD to detention for four years and six months for the most serious count of rape, with lesser sentences for the other counts to be served concurrently. Importantly, no convictions were recorded. The appellant, presumably the prosecutor, appealed against the sentencing judge’s decision not to record any convictions.

The primary legal issue was whether the failure to record convictions rendered the sentence manifestly inadequate. The court considered the principles governing the sentencing of juveniles, including the youth’s age, the absence of prior convictions for sexual offences, and the potential impact of recording a conviction on DCD’s future employment and rehabilitation prospects. The court also examined whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in not recording any convictions. The judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including DCD's age and the potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence, while lenient, was not manifestly inadequate as it allowed for the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society without the long-term stigma of a criminal record. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original sentencing decision.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The sentence of detention for four years and six months for the most serious offence, with other sentences to be served concurrently, remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v DCD; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2024] QCA 91
PARTIES:	R v DCD (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 124 of 2023 DC No 7 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 23 June 2023 (Jarro DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Bond JA and Burns J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the respondent youth pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault, four counts of rape and one count of robbery with personal violence committed in the one episode of offending – where the respondent had been sentenced previously for multiple offences including violent offences – where the respondent was sentenced to detention for four years and six months for the most serious count of rape and lesser sentences for the other counts to be served concurrently and to be released from custody after serving 50 per cent of the detention period – where no convictions were recorded – where the appellant appeals against the sentencing judge’s discretion not to record any convictions – where the sentencing judge took into account the respondent’s age, the fact that the respondent had not previously been convicted of any sexual offending and the impact of recording a conviction would have on the respondent’s chances of finding employment and rehabilitation – whether the failure to record convictions rendered the sentence manifestly inadequate Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 148, s 150, s 183, s 184, s 246, s 276F Youth Justice Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 21 R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General [1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10, cited R v DBU (2021) 7 QR 453; [2021] QCA 51, cited R v JO[2008] QCA 260, considered R v MDD (2021) 293 A Crim R 14; [2021] QCA 235, cited R v SCU[2017] QCA 198, considered
COUNSEL:	P J McCarthy KC, with T Hancock, for the appellant S J Keim SC, with L D Reece, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent