R v Loveridge

Case [2011] QCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Loveridge [2011] QCA 32

PARTIES:

R
v
LOVERIDGE, Zane James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 228 of 2010
DC No 39 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Chesterman and White JJA concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting

ORDER:

Application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with parole fixed after eight months for committing armed robbery – where the applicant was 17 – where the applicant had a juvenile criminal history – where the applicant was on probation at the time of the offence – whether the trial judge gave adequate recognition to mitigating factors including the applicant’s youth, guilty plea, cooperation with police and prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 36
Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), pt 1.3, s 11, s 12
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 3
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), s 3
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), pt 1
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [1991] ATS 4, art 1, art 3, art 37(c)
Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), s 4
Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 3
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), sch 4
Youth Justice Act 1997 (Tas), s 3
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT), s 6

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; (1999) 165 ALR 298; [1999] HCA 46, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Bainbridge & Ors (1993) 74 A Crim R 265; [1993] QCA 428, cited
R v Cay, Gersch, Schell; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2005) 158 A Crim R 488; [2005] QCA 467, considered
R v Dullroy & Yates; ex parteA-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 219, cited
R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Lawley[2007] QCA 243, considered
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, cited
R v Moss[1999] QCA 426, considered
R v Sherman[2007] QCA 322, considered
R v Taylor & Napatali; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland (1999) 106 A Crim R 578; [1999] QCA 323, cited
R v Turner[2009] QCA 15, considered

COUNSEL:

H Fong for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1]      MARGARET McMURDO P:  This appeal highlights the difficulty facing Queensland judges when sentencing 17 year olds for…

Continue reading R v Loveridge

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Loveridge [2011] QCA 32
Case
[2011] QCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial court, which was three years imprisonment with parole fixed after eight months, for the crime of armed robbery. The applicant, who was 17 at the time of the offence, had a prior history of juvenile offending and was on probation at the time of the armed robbery. The appeal was based on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly considering mitigating factors such as the applicant’s youth, the early guilty plea, cooperation with the police, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had given sufficient consideration to the mitigating factors presented, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the mitigating factors and determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the appropriate range for the crime committed.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors and the seriousness of the offence in arriving at the sentence. The court held that the mitigating factors, while relevant, did not warrant a significantly different outcome. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and thus the appeal against the sentence was refused.

The orders of the court were that the application to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application is refused.

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.