SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v MAC [2004] QCA 317
PARTIES:
R
v
MAC
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 118 of 2004
DC No 9 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
3 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
29 July 2004
JUDGES:
Davies and Jerrard JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to sexual offences against children including one count of rape against a 10 year old boy, one count of attempted rape against a three year old girl and one count of attempted rape against a six year old boy – where applicant 13 - 14 years old at time of offences and 15 years old at time of sentence – where applicant sentenced to four years detention to be released after serving 50 per cent of that time – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 263(3), s 302(1)(b)
R v JAJ [2003] QCA 554; CA No 321 of 2003, 12 December 2003, considered
COUNSEL:
K M McGinness for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and with the order he proposes.
JERRARD JA: On 2 February 2004 MAC pleaded guilty in the Children’s Court to one count of having raped C and two counts of having unlawfully and indecently dealt with C, a child then under 12 years of age; and a further count of having unlawfully and indecently dealt with N, also a child then under the age of 12 years. On 10 February 2004 MAC pleaded guilty to two further counts, one being the attempted rape of N and the other the attempted rape of M. On 6 April 2004 MAC, who was then still 15, was sentenced pursuant to Division 10 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 to four years detention, and the learned sentencing judge ordered pursuant to s 227 of that Act that he be released from detention after serving 50 per cent of that sentence. Two hundred and twenty one days of pre-sentence custody was automatically counted as part of that period of detention, pursuant to s 218.
MAC has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence, arguing it is manifestly excessive.
The offences committed against C probably all happened on the same day, when he was 10 years old, and was described as taking place a couple of weeks after the Ipswich Show in 2002. C is the son of a friend of MAC’s mother, whom C’s mother visited with C and his sister on the…
Continue reading R v MAC
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v MAC [2004] QCA 317
- Case
- [2004] QCA 317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the principles governing sentencing of juvenile offenders. The applicant argued that the sentence did not take into account mitigating factors such as his age, background, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders, including the need for rehabilitation, deterrence, and proportionality.
The court examined the principles of juvenile sentencing and noted the importance of considering the offender's age, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for rehabilitation. The court also considered the sentencing remarks of the trial judge, which included references to the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately balanced the need for punishment with the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile offender. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
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.