R v F - [2018] QChC 6

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v F [2018] QChC 6

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

F

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

208/17

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Application for Sentence Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court Mareeba

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2018

JUDGE:

Richards CCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed. Recording of convictions set aside. No convictions recorded

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant was convicted and convictions were recorded – where the Magistrate did not consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing before recording a conviction – whether the conviction should be set aside.

SOLICITORS:

D Law instructed by Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

C L Barron instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.

The applicant child was sentenced on 3 October 2017. He received six months detention with a conditional release order for three months on two charges one of burglary with intent to commit an indictable offence, and one of entering a dwelling with intent by break at night. Convictions were recorded in relation to both of the charges. At the time of sentence he had spent 28 days in pre-sentence custody. The applicant appeals against the recording of the convictions on the basis that the Magistrate did not place sufficient weight on the rehabilitative aspect of the sentencing process.

The applicant was sixteen years of age at the time of the offences and he had a three page criminal history including numerous offences of a like nature. He was at the time subject to two community based orders: one of 100 hours community service and one combined order of 100 hours community service with twelve months’ probation.

The offences themselves were not as serious as many that come before the court. On the 5 August 2017 he entered his neighbour’s house via an open rear window and took $40.00 in coins. When he was arrested he returned the container with the coins to the police and made admissions. On the 1 September 2017 he entered the garage area of a house when the complainant’s adult daughter looked through a window and recognised him. He attempted to hide but then jumped through an open window at the other end of the garage and ran away. He pleaded guilty to the offences. A pre-sentence report indicates that he has had a deprived childhood in that he was given up at an early age by his mother, his mother died suddenly when he was twelve years of age which affected him and the family who was looking after him, and he had unresolved grief issues. He was disengaged from schooling at the time. He had however completed a large portion of his community service in fairly quick time and he was more than half way through his second order of community service.

A sentence review is a rehearing on the merits of the case. The starting position in relation to 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 F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2018] QChC 6
Case: [2018] QChC 6
Decision Date: 29 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v F, the applicant was convicted of multiple charges by a Magistrate. The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that the Magistrate failed to consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing before recording the convictions. The legal issue before the court was whether the failure to consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing warranted setting aside the convictions.

The court found that the Magistrate's failure to consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing was a significant error. The court held that the principles of sentencing must be adhered to, and a failure to consider one of the key objectives of sentencing can lead to an unjust outcome. The court concluded that the failure to consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing was a fundamental error that warranted setting aside the convictions. The appeal was allowed, and the recording of convictions was set aside. No convictions were recorded as a result of the court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Recording of convictions set aside. No convictions 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v F [2018] QChC 6
PARTIES:	The Queen v F (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	208/17
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Application for Sentence Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court Mareeba
DELIVERED ON:	29 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2018
JUDGE:	Richards CCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed. Recording of convictions set aside. No convictions recorded
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant was convicted and convictions were recorded – where the Magistrate did not consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing before recording a conviction – whether the conviction should be set aside.
SOLICITORS:	D Law instructed by Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant C L Barron instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.