R v L - [2000] QCA 427

[2000] QCA 427

COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
MACKENZIE J
HELMAN J
CA No 200 of 2000
THE QUEEN
v.
L Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 16/10/2000
JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 5 June 2000, in the District Court at Townsville, to one count of break enter and steal and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, with a circumstance of aggravation. The applicant was born on 3 January 1984 and was respectively 15 and 16 at the time of the commission of these offences.

A pre-sentence report was ordered under the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. On 25 July 2000, the applicant was sentenced to respectively 100 hours community service, with a conviction recorded and nine month's detention, with a conviction recorded and an order for release, after serving 50 per cent of that sentence. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two years.
The applicant claims the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The applicant had a lengthy criminal history, especially considering his youth. He first appeared before the Ingham Childrens Court in May 1996 and was reprimanded without conviction for two counts of break enter and steal. Restitution was ordered.
He appeared again in the Ingham Childrens Court in September or October 1997 and was convicted of stealing and placed on probation for 12 months. His next appearance was in November 1997, when he was placed on a further 12 month's probation and ordered to perform 75 hours community service, without conviction, these offences constituting a breach of the earlier probation order.
In January 1998 he was sentenced to detention for six months, which was suspended immediately and an immediate release order given for three months, for unlawful use of a motor vehicle, an offence which breached the orders handed down in November 1997.
In March 1998, he was convicted of entering or being in a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence committed in February 1998. This constituted a breach of the immediate release order imposed the month before. He was sentenced to three months' detention, again with an immediate release order. In June 1998, he was convicted of unlawful entry of a vehicle for committing an indictable offence, which was committed in April 1998 and was a further breach of the immediate release order. He was sentenced to six months' detention.
The applicant was released in about September 1998. In March 1999 he committed further property offences, for which he was sentenced to six months' detention. On 28 April 1999 he was convicted and placed on 12 months' probation for using insulting words, assaulting a police officer, obstructing police and stating a false name, these offences having been committed in February 1999.
The offences the subject of this application constituted a breach of that probation order. The applicant must have been released in about August or September 1999. In October 1999 he was convicted of using insulting words and obstructing a police officer and was ordered to complete
40…

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 427
Case: [2000] QCA 427
Decision Date: 16/10/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v L, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court at Townsville. The applicant was convicted of break enter and steal, as well as unlawful use of a motor vehicle, with a circumstance of aggravation. The applicant was 15 or 16 at the time of the commission of these offences and had a lengthy criminal history, with numerous prior convictions and breaches of community-based orders. The District Court sentenced the applicant to 100 hours of community service, with a conviction recorded, and nine months' detention, with a conviction recorded and an order for release after serving 50 per cent of that sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight was given to his prospects of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the District Court failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The Court found that the applicant's persistent offending and re-offending, as well as his persistent breaching of community-based orders, justified the imposition of a period of detention. The combination of the orders imposed by the District Court met the principles of juvenile justice which stress rehabilitation. The Court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the combination of sentences was unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

In summary, the Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and that the District Court had properly considered the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders