R v J - [2000] QCA 489

[2000] QCA 489

COURT OF APPEAL
McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS J
DOUGLAS J
CA No 170 of 2000
THE QUEEN
v.
J Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/11/2000
JUDGMENT

DOUGLAS J: The applicant was convicted of eight relevant crimes with respect to this appeal, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, three counts of attempting to unlawfully use a motor vehicle, one count of common assault and three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
In respect of those charges, he was sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours' community service and convictions were recorded by the learned District Court Judge.
The appeal today is only in respect of the recording of convictions.
The facts surrounding the assault occasioning bodily harm were that on the evening of 3 October 1999 the complainant, a man of 23 years of age, was walking through King George Square in Brisbane.
He encountered a group of approximately nine indigenous youths, one of whom, a female, approached him and asked for his cigarette or some money. The complainant indicated he had neither and was immediately confronted by one of the male youths in the group who accused him of attempting to pick up his sister.
The complainant denied this and continued walking only to be surrounded by the group and subjected to a sustained beating. He was punched and kicked to all parts of the body, predominantly to the head.
Police officers saw the incident and raced to his assistance. The girl was seen rifling through the complainant's pockets as he lay prone on the ground and the applicant was seen to kick the complainant's upper body several times whilst one of his co-offenders repeatedly stomped on the complainant's head. Both youths continued their kicking assault even as the police were dragging them from the complainant.
The complainant suffered multiple bruises to the face and scalp, tenderness to areas of the face and right shoulder and an abrasion to the left knee.
The learned trial Judge described that conduct in the following way:
"Even if they were committed by an adult they would be regarded as very serious offences. This is an old, old trick, to get a little girl to approach somebody, then to accuse that person of wanting to have some further connection with her and then to put the person at the disadvantage by accusing the person of doing something improper. That sort of behaviour really has to be deterred."
He also described the offences of unlawfully using the motor vehicles as very serious because substantial damage was caused to at least one of those vehicles, that damage being in excess of $9,000.
His Honour gave consideration to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act which I recognise provide that convictions should not be recorded in most circumstances in respect of crimes committed by juveniles, especially juveniles of the age of this applicant who was approximately 13 years old at the time.
His Honour said:
"Concerning the question of recording a…

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 [2000] QCA 489
Case: [2000] QCA 489
Decision Date: 28/11/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v J involved an appeal against the decision of the District Court to record convictions for a series of criminal offences committed by the applicant. The applicant was convicted of eight offences, including assault occasioning bodily harm, attempting to unlawfully use a motor vehicle, common assault, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The appeal was specifically focused on the recording of these convictions. The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Williams J, and Douglas J, heard the case.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the District Court Judge had erred in exercising his discretion to record convictions for the applicant's crimes. The Juvenile Justice Act provided a framework for considering whether convictions should be recorded for juvenile offenders. The Act outlined several factors to be taken into account, including the nature of the offence, the age of the offender, any previous convictions, and the potential impact on the offender's rehabilitation. The Court needed to determine if the District Court Judge had adequately considered these factors and whether his decision to record convictions was justified.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court Judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in recording the convictions. The Court noted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the violent nature of the assault and the repeated instances of unlawful use of motor vehicles. The Judge had considered the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and determined that recording convictions would not unduly affect the applicant's chances of rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's decision, stating that it was within the Judge's discretion to record convictions in light of the applicant's ongoing criminal conduct following his initial arrest. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to refuse the application for leave to appeal, thereby affirming the District Court's decision to record the convictions. The Court's reasoning emphasized the need to consider the seriousness of the offences and the ongoing criminal conduct of the applicant, even after his initial arrest and release on bail.

Orders