R v HCN - [2023] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCN [2023] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
HCN
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 193 of 2022
DC No 269 of 2022
DC No 270 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 August 2022 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 19 April 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 12 May 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2023

JUDGES:

Dalton and Flanagan JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 19 April 2023

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of stealing, four counts of common assault and one count of robbery in company with violence – where the applicant was 14 years old at the time of offending – where the applicant was sentenced to 3 years’ probation for the count of robbery in company with violence – where that probation was cumulative with an earlier sentence for probation so that the applicant will serve three years and two months’ probation in total – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 669A
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 183, s 184

R v B[2003] QCA 24, considered
R v MCP [2018] QCA 154, considered
R v RAO & BCR & BCS; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 7, considered
R v TX [2011] 2 Qd R 247; [2011] QCA 68, cited
R v WAN[2012] QCA 21, considered

COUNSEL:

C R Smith for the applicant
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DALTON JA: This was an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). It was said to be manifestly excessive. The application was refused when it was heard. These are my reasons for joining in that order.
The applicant was convicted of six offences: stealing, four counts of common assault, and robbery in company with violence. The offences were committed between 4 December 2021 and 2 February 2022 when the applicant was 14 years old. She turned 15 in April 2022. The sentencing judge imposed a restorative justice order on one count of common assault, because the victim of that assault indicated in court that he would be prepared to meet with the applicant as part of that process, and the sentencing judge recognised that there would be value in the applicant meeting with the complainant and apologising to him. On each other count of common assault the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two years probation. On the count of stealing she imposed a sentence of six months probation. On the charge of robbery in company…

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 HCN

Details

AGLC: R v HCN [2023] QCA 97
Case: [2023] QCA 97
Decision Date: 12 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, HCN, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. HCN pleaded guilty to one count of stealing, four counts of common assault, and one count of robbery in company with violence. At the time of the offending, the appellant was 14 years old. The court sentenced HCN to three years’ probation for the count of robbery in company with violence, which was cumulative with an earlier sentence for probation, resulting in a total of three years and two months’ probation.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting interference by the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given their age at the time of offending and the relatively low severity of the crimes. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offending.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant’s age, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed and took into account the appellant’s age and potential for rehabilitation. The court further noted that cumulative probation sentences were permissible in appropriate circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 19 April 2023

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 HCN [2023] QCA 97
PARTIES:	R v HCN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 193 of 2022 DC No 269 of 2022 DC No 270 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 August 2022 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 19 April 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 12 May 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2023
JUDGES:	Dalton and Flanagan JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 19 April 2023 The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of stealing, four counts of common assault and one count of robbery in company with violence – where the applicant was 14 years old at the time of offending – where the applicant was sentenced to 3 years’ probation for the count of robbery in company with violence – where that probation was cumulative with an earlier sentence for probation so that the applicant will serve three years and two months’ probation in total – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 669A Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 183, s 184 R v B[2003] QCA 24, considered R v MCP [2018] QCA 154, considered R v RAO & BCR & BCS; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 7, considered R v TX [2011] 2 Qd R 247; [2011] QCA 68, cited R v WAN[2012] QCA 21, considered
COUNSEL:	C R Smith for the applicant C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent