R v P - [1996] QCA 317

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1996] QCA 317

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 234 of 1996
Brisbane [R v. P]

T H E Q U E E N

v.
P

(Applicant)

Thomas J
De Jersey J

Dowsett J

Judgment delivered 30 August 1996

Joint judgment of Thomas J and de Jersey J, Dowsett J dissenting

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ALLOWED. ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT BE

RELEASED AFTER SERVING FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DETENTION.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Applicant sentenced to detention for six months for two counts of arson of school buildings - Whether a custodial sentence ought to have been imposed.
Counsel:	Ms D Richards for the Applicant Mr T. Winn for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 20 August 1996

JOINT JUDGMENT - THOMAS and de JERSEY JJ
Delivered the 30th day of August, 1996

We have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Dowsett. In our respectful view, it fell within the discretion of the learned judge to impose a sentence of 6 months detention for the counts of arson.

There were certainly powerful features favouring a non- custodial penalty: the applicant's youth, his lack of prior criminal convictions, that the incident was out of character, his apparent remorse, his disrupted home life, the good prospects of rehabilitation, and that he may well to some extent have acted under the influence of a slightly older youth with a criminal past.
But as the learned judge indicated, there were also powerful features the other way, especially the need to deter, as strongly as compassionately possible, the commission of arson at schools. In our view, the judge was right to identify that consideration particularly, as distinguishing the case from Aufai (C.A. No.50 of 1995). That case does not support the proposition that no juvenile offender without previous convictions may be sentenced to detention.

There has been much publicity given to the apparent prevalence of this offence at schools, and to the consequent disruption to the education of children, with sometimes massive losses financially and in terms of community effort. The sentencing judge is in a specially advantageous position, as President of the Children's Court, to discern trends in this area: it seems very often that it is children who commit these offences at schools. He said:-

"I have been concerned for some time about the incidents of what I call "school offences". These offences involved breaking into schools and committing acts of vandalism therein. The most common form of vandalism is wilful damage or destruction of property, including fire damage.

According to figures furnished by the Department of Education, the estimated loss to the department so far for the financial year 95/96 caused by school fires is $3M and the estimated loss for the same period for property damage other than fire damage is $2.7M, a total of $5.7M for the current year not yet ended. These figures speak for…

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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [1996] QCA 317
Case: [1996] QCA 317
Decision Date: 30/08/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v P, the applicant was sentenced to detention for six months by the Supreme Court of Queensland for two counts of arson of school buildings. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that the court ought not to have imposed a custodial sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a non-custodial sentence would have been more appropriate for the applicant's crimes, given the nature of the offences, the applicant's background, and the principles of sentencing. The applicant argued that the court should have considered a non-custodial sentence, such as community service or intensive correction orders, in light of the applicant's young age, lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court considered the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1992. It was noted that the seriousness of the offences warranted a custodial sentence, but the court also recognised the importance of rehabilitation and proportionality. The court found that, while the applicant's age and lack of criminal history were mitigating factors, the gravity of the crimes and the need for denunciation and deterrence outweighed these considerations. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The court's decision was to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was to continue serving the six-month detention sentence as imposed by the trial court.

Orders