R v M - [1996] QCA 349

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 349
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No. 194 of 1996
[R. v. M]

THE QUEEN

v.
M

(Applicant) Appellant
Derrington J Mackenzie J

White J

Judgment delivered 20 September 1996
Judgment of the Court

Application granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence of detention imposed by Court below to be suspended after six months and Appellant to be released on following terms:

The appellant:

1.must not commit another offence during the period of the order; and

2.must report to an authorised commission officer at Caloundra within 24 hours of his release;

and

3.must report to, and receive visits from an authorised commission officer as directed by the

officer; and

4.must take part in counselling and satisfactorily attend other programmes as directed by the

court or an authorised commission officer during the period of the order; and

5.must notify an authorised commission officer of every change of the offender's place of

residence or employment within two business days after the change happens; and

6.must not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of an authorised commission

officer; and

7.must comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised commission officer; and

8.must reside at the Youth Focus facility at Caloundra or such other place as the authorised

commission officer may require.

The period of 38 days spent in detention on these charges prior to sentence is to be treated as time served in respect of the period of 6 months.

CATCHWORDS:Criminal Law - Arson of scouts hall - $186,000 worth of damage - Breaking and entering - 16 years of age at time of offence - No criminal history - Served 6 months - Whether should now be given opportunity of residing in youth residential centre.

Counsel:	Ms D. Richards for the Appellant Ms L. Clare for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 1 August 1996

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 20 September 1996

This is an application for leave to appeal by the above named who has been convicted of arson of a scouts hall causing damage of a value of $186,000, and of breaking, entering and stealing a carton of fruit-juice.

At the time of the offence he was sixteen years of age and had no criminal history. At his suggestion, he and a friend broke into the hall at about midnight. After they stole the fruit-juice, his accomplice left and he followed soon after, saying that he had lit up some plastic. The hall was totally destroyed.

He was spoken to by the police but gave a false alibi and subsequently refused a formal interview. He was arrested about seven days after the offences.

He failed to appear at the District Court sittings to which he was committed and was apprehended about six months later.

He pleaded guilty soon after but his sentence was delayed for a pre-sentence report. At his first interviews for this purpose, he said…

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 [1996] QCA 349
Case: [1996] QCA 349
Decision Date: 20/09/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of arson of a scouts hall causing damage of $186,000, and breaking, entering, and stealing a carton of fruit-juice. The Supreme Court of Queensland, specifically the Court of Appeal, heard the case. The appellant, who was 16 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal history, suggested breaking into the hall with a friend, stealing fruit-juice, and subsequently lighting some plastic, leading to the hall's total destruction. The appellant was sentenced to two years' detention for the arson charge and one year's detention for the breaking, entering, and stealing charge. The court considered whether the sentence should be varied to allow the appellant to reside in a youth residential centre.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence should be varied to suspend the detention order after six months, allowing the appellant to be released on probation with certain conditions. The court needed to assess the appropriateness of the original sentence in light of the appellant's age at the time of the offence, his lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider the seriousness of the offence and the need for both individual and general deterrence.

The court concluded that while the appellant's actions were serious, the length of the detention ordered was a concern, especially considering the appellant was under 17 at the time of the offence. The court noted that in similar cases, probation and/or community service had been ordered for offenders who were still children. The court found that the appellant had already spent a significant amount of time in custody, much of it in an adult prison, and that this time was equivalent to almost a year's imprisonment. The court believed that this might be sufficient to address the considerations of deterrence and rehabilitation. Therefore, the court decided to vary the sentence so that the detention would be suspended after six months, and the appellant would then be released on probation with additional conditions, including residing at a Youth Focus facility. The court granted the application and varied the sentence accordingly.

Orders