R v Laz

Case [2023] QCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LAZ [2023] QCA 46

PARTIES:

R
v
LAZ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 304 of 2021
DC No 59 of 2020
DC No 61 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 5 November 2020 (Lynham DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2023

JUDGES:

Bond JA and Gotterson AJA and Boddice AJA

ORDER:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery, in company – where the applicant was 17 and seven months at the time of the offence – where the applicant was sentenced under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to two years detention, a restorative order was made and a conviction recorded for the offence – where the applicant had been previously sentenced for five counts of robbery and expressed similar remorse at the time of that sentence – whether the recording of a conviction was manifestly excessive

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 184

COUNSEL:

C R Smith for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. BOND JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice AJA and with the order proposed by his Honour.

  2. GOTTERSON AJA:  I agree with the order proposed by Boddice AJA and with his Honour’s reasons for it.

  3. BODDICE AJA:  On 2 October 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty, in the Childrens Court at Townsville, to one count of armed robbery, in company.  The offence was committed on 5 March 2020, when the applicant was aged 17 years, seven months.

  4. On 5 November 2020, the applicant was sentenced to two years detention for the offence.  It was ordered he be released after serving 55 per cent of that detention, a restorative justice order was made, and a conviction recorded for the offence.

  5. The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence.  The sole ground, should leave be given, is that the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

    New evidence

  6. At the hearing before this Court, the applicant sought and was granted leave to adduce new evidence on the basis that it would become relevant in the event the appeal was allowed, and the sentencing discretion was to be exercised afresh.  As will appear, it is unnecessary to refer to that evidence.

    Offence

  7. The offence was committed by the applicant and a co-accused late one evening.  Both entered a petrol station armed with knives and wearing bandanas.  Both were carrying shopping bags.  The co-accused wore gloves.  The applicant had one glove.

  8. Present in the petrol station was the complainant, an employee of the petrol station, and two customers.  The applicant made threats and kicked…

Continue reading R v Laz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Laz [2023] QCA 46
Case
[2023] QCA 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Laz, the applicant appealed against his sentence for armed robbery, arguing that the recording of a conviction made the sentence manifestly excessive. The applicant, who was 17 and seven months at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty and was sentenced under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to two years detention, with a restorative order and a conviction recorded for the offence. The court was required to decide whether the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s age, criminal history, and the sentencing judge's balanced assessment of both aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentencing judge noted the applicant's prior convictions, criminal attitudes, and lack of change in behaviour despite opportunities for rehabilitation. The judge also considered the potential consequences of transferring the applicant to an adult prison. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court's reasoning focused on the careful consideration of the statutory criteria outlined in section 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). The sentencing judge balanced the aggravating factors, such as the serious nature of the armed robbery and the applicant's criminal history, against the mitigating factors, including the applicant's participation in education and courses, good behaviour in detention, and potential detrimental consequences of being transferred to an adult prison. The judge also considered the impact of a recorded conviction on the applicant's future rehabilitation and employment prospects. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion and did not misapply any principles in recording the conviction. The sentence was deemed not plainly unreasonable or unjust. Therefore, the court refused leave to appeal the sentence.

The court's final order was that leave to appeal be refused. This decision affirmed the sentencing judge's balanced consideration of all relevant factors and upheld the appropriateness of the sentence, including the recording of a conviction, in the context of the serious armed robbery committed by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence. The sole ground, should leave be given, is that the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.New evidence At the hearing before this Court, the applicant sought and was granted leave to adduce new evidence on the basis that it would become relevant in the event the appeal was allowed, and the sentencing discretion was to be exercised afresh. As will appear, it is unnecessary to refer to that evidence.Offence The offence was committed by the applicant and a co-accused late one evening. Both entered a petrol station armed with knives and wearing bandanas. Both were carrying shopping bags. The co-accused wore gloves. The applicant had one glove. Present in the petrol station was the complainant, an employee of the petrol station, and two customers. The applicant made threats and kicked a toilet door, behind which one customer was hiding. He demanded the complainant tell him where the safe was and that she fill his bag with cigarettes. The applicant and his co-accused unsuccessfully tried to open the safe. They were successful in stealing money from two cash registers. At one point, the applicant threatened to smash the complainant’s telephone. The applicant and his co-accused left the petrol station with an estimated $1,200 in cash. They also left with cigarettes and the complainant’s mobile phone and wallet. The applicant and his co-accused were located by police days later. They were found in possession of property taken during the robbery. They also had clothing matching that worn at the time of the robbery.Sentencing remarks At the time of sentence, the applicant had served 243 days in detention. The sentencing judge noted the serious nature of the armed robbery in company and the applicant’s “short, very serious criminal history”. The sentencing judge recorded that the applicant had had numerous previous sentencing opportunities, and that the pre-sentence report recorded that the applicant had pro-criminal attitudes, his mixing with antisocial peers and continued substance use. The sentencing judge noted that the applicant claimed remorse, but observed that the applicant had expressed similar remorse and insight at the time of being sentenced for robberies in 2018. The sentencing judge, therefore, did not place much weight on the applicant’s letter or a reference from his grandfather. The sentencing judge did accept that the applicant had been using his time in detention to engage in education and courses, and that he had demonstrated good behaviour consistent with moving in the right direction in a structured environment. The sentencing judge also recorded that having regard to the applicant’s age, there were potential detrimental consequences if he was to be transferred to an adult prison. Notwithstanding those detrimental consequences, the sentencing judge determined that detention was the only appropriate sentence, given the serious nature of the offending and the applicant’s prior criminal history.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The sentencing judge carefully considered the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors, including that the applicant had undertaken courses and education, had demonstrated good behaviour whilst in detention and was moving in the right direction in that structured environment. Further, the sentencing judge had regard to the consequence of the recording of a conviction, on the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation and future employment opportunities.Conclusion The recording of a conviction, for what was a serious example of armed robbery in company by an offender, but months before his 18th birthday, with a relevant criminal history for robbery offences, does not evidence any misapplication of principle or render the sentence plainly unreasonable or unjust. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.Order I would order that leave to appeal be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The respondent submits that the sentencing judge properly had regard to the considerations set out in section 184 of the Act, including the nature of the offence, the applicant’s age and any previous convictions, and the impact of a recording of a conviction on the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation generally or of finding and retaining employment. Further, the sentencing judge properly recognised that the primary position was that a conviction not be recorded.Consideration In recording a conviction, the sentencing judge carefully considered each of the relevant factors set out in section 184 of the Act. Having done so, it was within a sound exercise of the discretion, to record a conviction. The applicant had committed a very serious armed robbery, whilst in company, some months from him turning 18. He had a criminal history which included convictions for robbery. His time in detention, otherwise used wisely, had not dispelled his criminal attitudes. Whilst it is true that the sentencing judge placed emphasis on the applicant’s prior offending in 2018, and the opportunity afforded at that time in not recording convictions, those circumstances did not overwhelm a consideration of those mitigating circumstances in support of not recording a conviction. The sentencing judge carefully considered the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors, including that the applicant had undertaken courses and education, had demonstrated good behaviour whilst in detention and was moving in the right direction in that structured environment. Further, the sentencing judge had regard to the consequence of the recording of a conviction, on the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation and future employment opportunities.Conclusion The recording of a conviction, for what was a serious example of armed robbery in company by an offender, but months before his 18th birthday, with a relevant criminal history for robbery offences, does not evidence any misapplication of principle or render the sentence plainly unreasonable or unjust. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.Order I would order that leave to appeal be refused.