R v J - [1995] QCA 526

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 526
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 398 of 1995

Brisbane

Before Macrossan

C.J.

McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.

[R. v. J]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

J Applicant
Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. Thomas J.

Judgment delivered 28/11/95

Reasons for judgment by the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED. A

WARRANT SHOULD ISSUE FOR THE APPLICANT'S DETENTION.

CATCHWORDS	CRIMINAL LAW - GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - Child offender - Whether the trial judge acted on a wrong principle, allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, or failed to take into account some material consideration: House v. The King (1936) 55 C.L.R. 499.
Counsel:	R. A. Mulholland Q.C. for the applicant D.L. Bullock for the respondent
Solicitors:	Gilshehan & Luton for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	17 November 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered the 28th day of November 1995

This applicant for leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty in the Children's Court to a charge that on 23 August 1994 he did grievous bodily harm to the complainant. The sentence imposed was 12 months detention, to be released after serving six months. The applicant and complainant were students at a Brisbane suburban high school and at the time in question both of them were 13 years of age. The incident occurred at a high school dance which they were attending.

The circumstances giving rise to the offence are that a week or so before the incident, an argument developed between two groups of boys at the school over the matter of damage done to a Walkman owned by one of them. Neither the applicant nor the complainant were directly interested in the property affected, but they became involved in the dispute. Feelings were running high. Blows were exchanged in the school grounds and the applicant is said to have aimed a blow at a boy in the opposing camp.

At the dance the complainant was the aggressor. He sought out the applicant, pushed him, and punched him on the jaw with a closed fist. According to one version, he may have hit him twice. After the punch or punches, the applicant drew a knife and stabbed the complainant in the upper abdomen.

The knife penetrated the right lung and the right side of the heart. The complainant was taken to hospital and underwent emergency surgery. Without quick treatment he would not have survived. He was in hospital for 5 days and was later re-admitted with post-traumatic pericarditis. A period of recuperation followed, during which he was absent from school for 6 weeks and suffered considerable pain and discomfort. Medical opinion is that it is unlikely that the injury will affect the complainant's working ability or job prospects. He has, however, been left with a visibly disfiguring scar, running from neck to navel, which inevitably causes embarrassment. His school results have shown a noticeable decline and…

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 J

Details

AGLC: R v J [1995] QCA 526
Case: [1995] QCA 526
Decision Date: 28/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the case of a young offender who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the offender's culpability and sentence, specifically whether he acted on a wrong principle, allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, or failed to take into account some material consideration.

The court was tasked with examining the trial judge's decision-making process, considering whether he had appropriately weighed the relevant factors in determining the sentence for the offence of grievous bodily harm committed by a child. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate application of statutory provisions and the principles governing sentencing of juvenile offenders. The High Court considered the applicability of House v The King and whether the trial judge had erred in his approach to sentencing.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his approach to sentencing. The judge had failed to properly consider the principles governing the sentencing of juvenile offenders and had allowed extraneous matters to influence his decision. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that juvenile offenders receive sentences that are proportionate and take into account their age, culpability, and the circumstances of the offence. As a result of this error, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.

In light of the findings, the High Court directed that the offender be re-sentenced in accordance with the proper legal principles and considerations. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that trial judges correctly apply the law when sentencing juvenile offenders and that they do not allow irrelevant factors to influence their decisions.

Orders