R v M - [2003] QCA 378

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 378
PARTIES: R
v
M
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 239 of 2003 CC No 122 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Childrens Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 1 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 1 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Conviction not recorded
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – DETENTION IN
TRAINING CENTRE AND OTHER REFORMATORY
SENTENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to grievous
bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to 12 months
detention suspended after serving 6 months – where applicant
has no previous convictions – whether learned primary judge
took into account all mitigating factors - whether sentence
manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 109
R v Amituanai [1994] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28
March 1995, applied
R v GB & LB [1999] QCA 46; CA No 443 of 1998, 26
February 1999, applied
R v M [1996] 1 QdR 650, applied
COUNSEL: A J Rafter for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence, pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm on 20 June 2003. A presentence report was ordered. He was subsequently sentenced to 12 months' detention to be released after serving 50 per cent of that sentence. He contends the sentence was manifestly excessive.

He was 16 and a-half at the time of the offence and 17 at sentence. He had no previous convictions and his only contact with the authorities was that he had been once cautioned in relation to a minor drug matter.

The complainant was a 19 year old young man who spent the shouted, "Why don’t you go and fight someone your own age?" The complainant's friend then returned to the car park and threw punches at the applicant's friend and pushed a young female. The brother then again came to assist and, this time, hit the complainant's friend to the head and a struggle ensued between these two. The complainant rushed at the brother, swearing at him, and the brother fled behind a car and called for help with the complainant in pursuit.

evening of 19 July 2002 in company with his 23 year old male
friend drinking at the Moreton Bay Hotel. They left in the
early hours of the morning. The applicant, who had himself
consumed a small amount of spirits earlier that evening, was
approached by the complainant and his friend and assaulted
without provocation. There were no witnesses to this
incident. The applicant then joined his group…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2003] QCA 378
Case: [2003] QCA 378
Decision Date: 1/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v M, the appellant, a juvenile offender, was found guilty of an indictable offence. The dispute centred around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue for determination was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and unjust, warranting an appeal to the High Court.

The court considered the legal principles applicable to sentencing juvenile offenders. It emphasised the importance of proportionality, rehabilitation, and the need to protect the rights of juvenile offenders. The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the appellant's age, background, and prospects for rehabilitation. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and unjust, and that it should be quashed or reduced.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant but found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or unjust. The court considered the appellant's age, background, and prospects for rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and was in the best interests of the appellant and the community. The court further noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence, and that it was not manifestly excessive or unjust. The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The conviction was not recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Conviction not recorded

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.

CITATION:	R v M [2003] QCA 378
PARTIES:	R v M (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 239 of 2003 CC No 122 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	1 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused Conviction not recorded
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – DETENTION IN TRAINING CENTRE AND OTHER REFORMATORY SENTENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to 12 months detention suspended after serving 6 months – where applicant has no previous convictions – whether learned primary judge took into account all mitigating factors - whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 109
R v Amituanai [1994] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995, applied R v GB & LB [1999] QCA 46; CA No 443 of 1998, 26 February 1999, applied R v M [1996] 1 QdR 650, applied
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent