R v M - [2003] QCA 254

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v M [2003] QCA 254

PARTIES:

R
v
M

FILE NO/S:

CA No 64 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2003

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, White and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant’s offending behaviour shows complete disregard for the law – where continuous pattern of offending whilst released on bail – where applicant’s youth only matter in his favour – where applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment to reflect overall criminality of his behaviour – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where sentencing guidelines encourage punishment by means other than imprisonment – where parole only available if sentence in excess of two years – where probation not available if term of imprisonment less than one year – where sentence of one year would fail to reflect extent of applicant’s offending – whether punishment, general deterrence and protection of community outweigh considerations of rehabilitation

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 134
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 109
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 13, s 92(1)(b)

R v Juric [2003] QCA 132; CA No 431 of 2002, 25 March 2003, considered
R v Laskus [1996] QCA 120; CA No 56 of 1996, 24 April 1996, considered
R v Nagy [2003] QCA 175; CA No 24 of 2003, 2 May 2003, referred to
R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322; CA No 99 of 2001, 7 August 2001, considered
R v White [1992] QCA 419; CA No 244 of 1992, 19 October 1992, considered
Sweet v Armstrong [1995] QCA 406; CA No 151 of 1995, 1 September 1995, considered

COUNSEL:

K M McGinness for the applicant
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

JERRARD JA: On 13 February 2003 the applicant M pleaded guilty in the District Court in Mount Isa to two counts of burglary, two of stealing, one each of wilful destruction, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and house breaking; and two counts of commission of a serious assault on a police officer. He had committed the first burglary offence when he was subject to an immediate release order and all of the remaining offences were committed on bail. His conduct throughout the 10 month period in which those offences were committed showed a continuous pattern of being taken into custody, being released…

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 254
Case: [2003] QCA 254
Decision Date: 20 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v M, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The applicant had been convicted of multiple offences committed while on bail for other charges. The trial judge had sentenced the applicant to a term of two years imprisonment, a decision that the applicant argued was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the factors considered by the trial judge.

The key legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders had been appropriately applied. The Court had to consider the overall criminality of the applicant’s behaviour, his continuous pattern of offending while on bail, and his youth as a mitigating factor. Furthermore, the Court needed to weigh the principles of punishment, general deterrence, and protection of the community against the considerations of rehabilitation, particularly in light of the sentencing guidelines which encourage punishment by means other than imprisonment for juvenile offenders.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of two years imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the overall criminality of the applicant's behaviour. The continuous pattern of offending while on bail demonstrated a complete disregard for the law, and while the applicant's youth was a mitigating factor, it did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The Court held that a sentence of one year would not adequately reflect the extent of the applicant’s offending, and given that parole was only available if the sentence exceeded two years, the sentence was deemed necessary for general deterrence and the protection of the community. The Court concluded that the punishment, general deterrence, and community protection considerations outweighed the principles of rehabilitation.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, thereby upholding the trial judge’s decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 254
PARTIES:	R v M
FILE NO/S:	CA No 64 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2003
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, White and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant’s offending behaviour shows complete disregard for the law – where continuous pattern of offending whilst released on bail – where applicant’s youth only matter in his favour – where applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment to reflect overall criminality of his behaviour – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where sentencing guidelines encourage punishment by means other than imprisonment – where parole only available if sentence in excess of two years – where probation not available if term of imprisonment less than one year – where sentence of one year would fail to reflect extent of applicant’s offending – whether punishment, general deterrence and protection of community outweigh considerations of rehabilitation Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 134 Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 109 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 13, s 92(1)(b) R v Juric [2003] QCA 132; CA No 431 of 2002, 25 March 2003, considered R v Laskus [1996] QCA 120; CA No 56 of 1996, 24 April 1996, considered R v Nagy [2003] QCA 175; CA No 24 of 2003, 2 May 2003, referred to R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322; CA No 99 of 2001, 7 August 2001, considered R v White [1992] QCA 419; CA No 244 of 1992, 19 October 1992, considered Sweet v Armstrong [1995] QCA 406; CA No 151 of 1995, 1 September 1995, considered
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the applicant D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent