R v L-A, T & R v A, SA - [2010] SASC 91

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v L-A, T & R v A, SA
[2010] SASC 91
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Nyland, The Honourable Justice Gray and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
7 April 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING OF JUVENILES - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - DETENTION IN TRAINING CENTRE
Defendant youth pleaded guilty to a number of offences - appeal against order that defendant serve balance of sentence in an adult prison - youth offender over 18 at time of sentence - whether defendant should be returned to a youth training centre - Court to conduct a review akin to that contemplated by s 36(2) Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) as to whether training centre or adult prison appropriate - no presumption that a youth offender over 18 should be housed in a training centre - whether too much weight given to defendant's superficial victim awareness - whether insufficient weight given to rehabilitation and education whilst in training centre.
Held: (per Nyland and Gray JJ, Vanstone J concurring): having regard to all the circumstances surrounding the detention of the youth, in particular his positive steps towards rehabilitation and education whilst in the training centre, it is appropriate that the sentence of imprisonment be served in a youth training centre. Appeal allowed.

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - AGE OF OFFENDER - YOUNG OFFENDER
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING OF JUVENILES - RELEVANT FACTORS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Defendant youths pleaded guilty to a number of offences - appeal against sentence - whether sentences were manifestly excessive - whether Judge adequately considered the circumstances of the defendants, including their ages and prospects for rehabilitation.
Held: (by Nyland and Gray JJ): in respect of both defendants, the Judge gave insufficient weight to their prospects of rehabilitation. The sentences were manifestly excessive. Appeal allowed.
Per Vanstone J (dissenting): the Judge had adequate regard to the circumstances of the defendants, including their age. Having regard to the serious nature of the offences, the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19(1), 19(2), 85(3), 86A, 134(1), 137(1), 169(1), 270A; Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) ss 3, 29, 36, referred to.
R v QTV (2007) 87 SASR 378; R v F (1999) 75 SASR 163, applied.

R v L-A, T & R v A, SA
[2010] SASC 91
Court of Criminal Appeal: Nyland, Gray and Vanstone JJ
NYLAND and GRAY JJ:

These two sentence appeals were heard together.
On the night of 6 and 7 December 2007, T and S, the appellants, who were youths, together with another youth and an adult, committed a series of offences. T was aged 16 years and two months and S was 14 years and almost 11 months. The other youth, J, was aged 15 years and one month and 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v L-A, T & R v A, SA and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] SASC 91
Decision Date: 7 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, three defendants appealed against their sentences imposed by the Adelaide Magistrates Court. The defendants were found guilty of various offences and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The appeal focused on the order that the defendant L-A serve the balance of his sentence in an adult prison, rather than being returned to a youth training centre. The defendants argued that they should be housed in a training centre, citing their age and the benefits of such an environment for rehabilitation and education.

The legal issues before the court involved the sentencing of juvenile offenders and the appropriate placement for those over 18 years of age. The court had to determine whether a youth offender over 18 should be housed in a training centre or an adult prison. This involved a review akin to the process outlined in section 36(2) of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA). The court needed to weigh the importance of victim awareness against the potential for rehabilitation and education within a training centre.

The court found that there was no presumption that a youth offender over 18 should be housed in a training centre. However, the court acknowledged that in some circumstances, a training centre may be more appropriate. The court considered whether the trial judge had given too much weight to the defendant's superficial victim awareness and whether insufficient weight was given to the rehabilitation and education benefits of a training centre. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in sentencing the defendants to serve their sentences in an adult prison.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals were dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court were upheld. The defendants were to serve their sentences in an adult prison, and the decision of the Magistrates Court was affirmed.

Orders