R v Lovett (a pseudonym)

[2021] QCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Lovett (a pseudonym) [2021] QCA 46
PARTIES:	R v LOVETT (a pseudonym) (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 149 of 2020 DC No 3 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Sentence: 17 July 2020 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	16 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 March 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Davis J
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 a juvenile and convicted of armed robbery in company – where the applicant was sentenced to a period of detention of 15 months with a conviction recorded – where the applicant refused to accept responsibility for the offence and had a relevant lengthy criminal history – whether the recording of a conviction rendered the sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	V Trafford-Walker for the applicant A Nikolic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. SOFRONOFF P:  The applicant pleaded not guilty to a charge of armed robbery in company.  Clare DCJ found him guilty.  The applicant accosted a boy on the street, brandished a knife at him, and stole the boy’s bicycle.  The bicycle has not been recovered.

2. The victim of this frightening robbery has said that he now has trouble sleeping and is worried that he might see the applicant again when he himself is alone.  He is frightened about what the applicant might do to him.  None of that is surprising.

3. A pre-sentence report does not explain the applicant’s criminal propensity.  He is said to have had an uneventful childhood with no significant trauma.  He was brought up by his mother.  It is said that after his grandfather died in 2016, the applicant’s behaviour began to deteriorate.  He became disruptive in class and fought with other pupils.  He stayed away from school.  His mother found herself unable to enforce any boundaries upon him.  The applicant would search through his mother’s cupboards and drawers in attempts to find items of value to steal.  His mother became frightened of him.  Still, the applicant continued to believe that it was his mother’s duty to support and protect him, despite the fact that he sometimes bullied and intimidated her and stole her property.

4. Inevitably, the applicant began to associate with similarly criminally minded young people.  He began to use drugs, including methylamphetamine.

5. The author of the pre-sentence report says that the applicant fails to understand the seriousness of his offending and the harm that his actions cause to others.  The applicant admitted that he usually offends for personal gain.

6. The applicant has failed to accept responsibility for the offence.  He maintains that he was not present at the time of the offence of which he was found guilty.

7. The applicant has a lengthy…