R v KRM

Case [2020] QChC 4


CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v KRM [2020] QChC 4

PARTIES:

R

v

KRM

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

452/19

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Application for Sentence Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2020

JUDGE:

Richards P

ORDER:

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of 9 months probation set aside. The child is sentenced to 3 months probation.

Sentence otherwise to remain

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – where the applicant child was sentenced to 13 offences – where the applicant child was 14 or 15 at the time of the relevant offending – where the applicant child spent 31 days in pre-sentence detention – where a nine month probation order was imposed – whether time in pre-sentence detention was adequately taken into account – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

Mr T Finter for the applicant

Mr J Daniels for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. On 4 September 2019, the applicant was sentenced in relation to 13 offences. He was cautioned for an offence of failing to appear in accordance with an undertaking on 19 September 2018, possession of a knife in a public place on 29 November 2018 and driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s licence (never held licence) on 12 January 2019. A nine month probation order was imposed for the remaining offences and convictions were not recorded.

  1. The facts of the offences were as follows:

1.          On 28 April 2018, the applicant stole bicycles from the roof rack of a vehicle parked in a shopping centre carpark. They were later found damaged and they were written off for insurance purposes. The complainant was required to pay an excess of $1,200. The bikes were worth $23,000. [Stealing, wilful damage]

2.          On 16 June 2018, the applicant was found by police to be in possession of a stolen bicycle. [Possession of tainted property]

3.          On 19 September 2018, the applicant failed to appear at court in accordance with this undertaking of bail and said that he had forgotten to attend. [Failure to appear]

4.          On 29 November 2018, the applicant threatened a person by holding a Stanley knife near the person’s chest. He then resisted arrest, acted aggressively towards police and caused a public nuisance by yelling at police while he was being transported to the Stockland Police Beat. [Possession of a knife in a public place, obstruct police, commit public nuisance]

5.          On 12 January 2019, the applicant received the keys to a Hyundai vehicle and unlawfully used that vehicle both as a passenger and as the driver. He drove it at excessive speed and on the wrong side of the road in a populated area.[Receiving tainted property, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, unlicensed driving, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle]

6.          On 29 April 2019, he stole a money tin containing charitable donations. [Stealing]

7.…

Details
AGLC
R v KRM [2020] QChC 4
Case
[2020] QChC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KRM involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on a juvenile offender, KRM, who was convicted of 13 offences. KRM was between 14 and 15 years old at the time of the relevant offending. Prior to sentencing, KRM spent 31 days in pre-sentence detention. The court imposed a sentence of nine months probation, which KRM now appealed as manifestly excessive. The primary contention was whether the time spent in pre-sentence detention was adequately considered and whether the overall sentence was excessively harsh.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed on KRM was appropriate in light of the time already spent in pre-sentence detention, and whether the sentence could be considered manifestly excessive. The court had to consider principles of sentencing for juveniles, the nature of the offences, and the necessity of rehabilitation versus punishment.

In its judgment, the court found that the time KRM had already spent in pre-sentence detention was not adequately taken into account in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence of nine months probation was manifestly excessive. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a sentence of three months probation, while otherwise maintaining the other terms of the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of 9 months probation set aside. The child is sentenced to 3 months probation.

Sentence otherwise to remain

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.