R v MDD

The applicant, MDD, was convicted in the Children's Court on 26 February 2019, following a guilty plea to 21 charges, including armed robbery, burglary, stealing and common assault. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 17 months detention on each count, to be served concurrently, with release after serving 60 per cent, and time on remand declared as time served. MDD appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the sentencing process miscarried due to the failure of the judge to express reasons for imposing detention over other sentencing options.

The legal issues in the appeal concerned whether the sentencing discretion had miscarried due to the sentence being manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing process miscarried because the judge did not provide reasons for imposing detention over other sentencing options. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the judge did not adequately consider the time already served in detention for other sentences, and the judge did not provide reasons for imposing detention over other sentencing options, as required by section 208 of the Youth Justice Act.

The court found that the sentencing discretion had miscarried because the judge did not adequately consider the time already served in detention for other sentences, and the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court also found that the sentencing process miscarried because the judge did not provide reasons for imposing detention over other sentencing options, as required by section 208 of the Youth Justice Act. The court noted that the pre-sentence report identified a restorative justice order or a conditional release order as viable alternatives to detention, but the judge did not provide reasons for not preferring these options to detention. The court held that the sentencing judge was required to express the reasons for imposing detention, rather than other sentencing options, in the sentencing remarks.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made in the Children's Court. The applicant was to be released under the supervision of the Chief Executive for a period of 6 months, and comply with the requirements set out in section 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992, and report to the Chief Executive by 4 pm 1 May 2019, and abstain from consumption of alcohol or illicit drugs. No conviction was recorded for any of the offences.