R v L - [2002] QCA 517

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v L [2002] QCA 517

PARTIES:

R
v
L

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 295 of 2002

DC No 161 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where applicant convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent – where applicant aged 16 years at time of offence – where applicant sentenced to 12 months imprisonment – where applicant sought leave to appeal sentence – whether manifestly excessive – whether “special circumstances” existed for the purposes of s 188(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether learned sentencing judge should have ordered early release from detention

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(2)

R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered
R v B [1995] QCA 295, CA No 150 of 1995, 7 June 1995, considered
R v J [1995] QCA 526, CA No 398 of 1995, 28 November 1995, considered

R v S [1999] QCA 499, CA No 323 of 1999, 1 December 1999, considered
R v W & C [1996] QCA 064, CA Nos 495 and 496 of 1995, 22 March 1996, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf, assisted by E M Joshua

T A Fuller for the respondent

A Boe (solicitor) appeared as amicus curiae

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Boe & Callaghan appeared as amicus curiae

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Philippides J for dismissing this application. The Court is indebted to Mr Boe for his appearance in this matter at such short notice.

JERRARD JA: I have read the reasons in draft of Philippides J and agree with her reasons and proposed order.

PHILIPPIDES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant on 30 August 2002 on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant, who was aged 16 years at the time of the offence, was sentenced in the Children’s Court at Brisbane upon his plea of guilty to the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent. He was sentenced to 12 months detention. A conviction was recorded and a declaration made that the 68 days spent in presentence custody be time already served.

The circumstances of the offence arose out of a fight on 13 October 2001 involving two groups of young men. One group, which included the complainant, was waiting at a bus stop at Runcorn at 10:30 pm. A member of 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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2002] QCA 517
Case: [2002] QCA 517
Decision Date: 29 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v L, the applicant was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent. The applicant was 16 years old at the time of the offence and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and that there were special circumstances for the purposes of section 188(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld). Additionally, the applicant argued that the learned sentencing judge should have ordered early release from detention.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether special circumstances existed for the purposes of section 188(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld). The court considered the principles of sentencing juvenile offenders and the appropriate weight to be given to the circumstances of the case.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal the sentence. It found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the age of the applicant, and the need for general deterrence. The court also found that there were no special circumstances that warranted a departure from the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and that there was no basis for ordering early release from detention.

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

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.

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 L [2002] QCA 517
PARTIES:	R v L (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 295 of 2002 DC No 161 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where applicant convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent – where applicant aged 16 years at time of offence – where applicant sentenced to 12 months imprisonment – where applicant sought leave to appeal sentence – whether manifestly excessive – whether “special circumstances” existed for the purposes of s 188(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether learned sentencing judge should have ordered early release from detention Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(2) R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered R v B [1995] QCA 295, CA No 150 of 1995, 7 June 1995, considered R v J [1995] QCA 526, CA No 398 of 1995, 28 November 1995, considered R v S [1999] QCA 499, CA No 323 of 1999, 1 December 1999, considered R v W & C [1996] QCA 064, CA Nos 495 and 496 of 1995, 22 March 1996, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf, assisted by E M Joshua T A Fuller for the respondent A Boe (solicitor) appeared as amicus curiae
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent Boe & Callaghan appeared as amicus curiae