R v L - [2000] QCA 448

[2000] QCA 448

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
PINCUS JA
THOMAS J

CA No 194 of 2000

THE QUEEN

L Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/10/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and two counts of stealing and also to three summary offences involving two counts of possession of a dangerous drug, cannabis and one count of possession of a knife in a public place. The applicant was sentenced globally to perform 50 hours community service on the usual conditions and a conviction was recorded.

The applicant submits that the learned sentencing Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in recording a conviction because of his age - sixteen and a half at the time of the offences - and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The applicant was born on 16 June 1983. Although he had turned 17 at the time of his sentence the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, by way of sections 103 and 104, made that Act applicable. He had some criminal history. In November 1999 he was reprimanded for possession of liquor in a public place whilst a minor. He also pleaded guilty to four charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two charges of entering premises and committing an indictable offence and breaking out and three counts of stealing. He was sentenced to two years probation, with a special condition requiring drug counselling and 200 hours community service. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of utensils or pipes for smoking marijuana and was placed on a good behaviour bond. No convictions were recorded. These were his first appearances before the Court.

The offences the subject of this application occurred as follows. On 23 November 1999, not long after the applicant was placed on probation, the complainant's Ford Telstar motor vehicle was taken from Grovely Railway Station and his QUT student card stolen. On 18 December 1999 the applicant was spoken to at the Keperra Railway Station, searched and the complainant's ID card was found in his possession. The applicant said he found it in a wallet in the City.

On 12 January 2000 the complainant loaded his son's bike in the rear of a van. The applicant took the bicycle from the van but was pursued by neighbours, caught and restrained until police arrived. He then admitted to the police that he and James Dipple took the Ford Telstar motor vehicle. Cannabis seeds were located in his wallet.

On 20 January 2000 he was found with two other juveniles in Mitchelton and was observed to throw an object into the bushes, which was later identified as a screw driver. He was in possession of a large folding pocket knife. More cannabis seeds were located in his pocket.

It is immediately notable that the applicant twice
re-offended after being at least questioned and possibly charged by police. All these offences were committed in contravention of a probation…

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 [2000] QCA 448
Case: [2000] QCA 448
Decision Date: 27/10/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant pleaded guilty to various offences, including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, and possession of dangerous drugs and a knife in public. The applicant, who was sixteen and a half at the time of the offences, was sentenced in the District Court at Brisbane to perform community service and a conviction was recorded. The applicant appealed against the recording of a conviction, arguing that the learned sentencing Judge erred in exercising his discretion to record a conviction due to the applicant's age and prospects of rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and assessed whether the learned sentencing Judge erred in his discretion to record a conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered the different considerations that apply when deciding whether to record a conviction of a juvenile offender compared to an adult offender. The Court highlighted that the primary purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 is the child's rehabilitation, and a conviction is not to be recorded against a child unless there is good reason to do so. The Court also acknowledged the importance of the public interest in knowing the truth about criminal proceedings, particularly when it comes to adult offenders.

In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the learned sentencing Judge considered valid reasons for recording a conviction, such as the applicant's re-offending while on probation. However, the majority of the Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the applicant's previous offences and re-offending, ultimately decided that it was within the discretion of the learned sentencing Judge to order that convictions be recorded in this case. The Court took into account the applicant's age at the time of the offences, his promising prospects of rehabilitation, and the fact that he had not re-offended since the time of sentencing.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was to refuse the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court found that the learned sentencing Judge did not err in exercising his discretion to record a conviction, and the decision of the District Court was upheld.

Orders