R v O - [2003] QCA 472

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v O [2003] QCA 472

PARTIES:

R v O (applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 296 of 2003
CC No 1 of 2003
CC No 139 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Childrens Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 29 October 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 29 October 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE - JUVENILE OFFENDERS – OTHER
MATTERS – where applicant pleaded guilty to numerous
property offences and one count of assault occasioning bodily
harm – where, in respect of offences committed by the
applicant while on bail, she was sentenced to 12 months
detention with a 3 month immediate release order – where, in
respect of the remaining offences, applicant sentenced to 2
years probation with conditions and ordered to serve 200
hours of community service – whether recording of
convictions and the sentences imposed manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176, s 4, s 109, s 165, s
150, s 208
R v B [2003] QCA 24; CA No 408 of 2002, 7 February 2003,
distinguished
R v B [1995] QCA 231; CA No 551 of 1994, 9 June 1995,
distinguished
R v C & M [2001] Qd R 636, followed
COUNSEL: K M McGinness for the applicant
K A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant child, aged 16 at the time of
sentence and 15½ at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty
in the Childrens Court of Queensland at Townsville on the 27th

of May 2003 to multiple offences. The first indictment	10
charged four counts of burglary committed between 3 and 14
July 2002. The second indictment charged seven counts of
burglary and stealing, 10 counts of receiving and one count of
stealing. These offences occurred between June and 31 August
2002, when the applicant was detained in custody. The third	20
indictment, brought without committal proceedings, charged one
count of burglary by breaking in company, one count of
stealing, nine counts of burglary and stealing and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. These offences occurred between June and August 2002. A large number of the offences	30
were committed whilst the applicant was on bail. The
applicant was sentenced in August 2003, after a presentence
report was prepared. In respect of the offences committed by her on bail, she was sentenced to 12 months' detention with a three-month immediate release order under s 176, Juvenile	40
Justice Act 1992 (Qld), as it then applied.
In respect of the remaining offences, she was sentenced to two
years' probation, with a series of additional conditions
tailored to her needs, and 200 hours'…

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 O

Details

AGLC: R v O [2003] QCA 472
Case: [2003] QCA 472
Decision Date: 29/10/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant, who pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The application was heard and determined by the higher court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, warranting an appeal. This involved a consideration of the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders, as well as any other relevant factors that might have influenced the lower court's decision.

The court examined the circumstances of the case, including the nature and circumstances of the offences committed by the applicant, as well as the applicant's personal background and history. The court considered the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders, which prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration into society over punishment. In addition, the court also evaluated the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence in light of the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate, and therefore did not warrant an appeal.

Based on the above reasoning, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the lower court had considered the relevant sentencing principles and factors in imposing the sentence. The court did not find any error or irregularity in the sentencing process that would warrant an appeal. Accordingly, the applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no appeal was allowed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 O [2003] QCA 472
PARTIES:	R v O (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 296 of 2003 CC No 1 of 2003 CC No 139 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX	29 October 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - JUVENILE OFFENDERS – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant pleaded guilty to numerous property offences and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where, in respect of offences committed by the applicant while on bail, she was sentenced to 12 months detention with a 3 month immediate release order – where, in respect of the remaining offences, applicant sentenced to 2 years probation with conditions and ordered to serve 200 hours of community service – whether recording of convictions and the sentences imposed manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176, s 4, s 109, s 165, s 150, s 208
R v B [2003] QCA 24; CA No 408 of 2002, 7 February 2003, distinguished R v B [1995] QCA 231; CA No 551 of 1994, 9 June 1995, distinguished R v C & M [2001] Qd R 636, followed
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the applicant K A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent