R v Raea - [2006] QCA 487

[2006] QCA 487

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA
HOLMES JA

CA No 275 of 2006
DC No 214 of 2006
DC No 222 of 2006
DC No 335 of 2006
DC No 432 of 2006

THE QUEEN

RAEA, Maara Mourea Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 23/11/2006

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Holmes to deliver her reasons first.

HOLMES JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted on pleas of guilty of one count of armed robbery in company with violence, three counts of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of robbery in company, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, two counts of receiving, two counts of attempted fraud, three counts of demanding property with menaces and one count of common assault.

She pleaded guilty also to five summary offences: possessing property suspected of having being used in connection with the commission of a drug offence, contravening a police requirement, possessing utensils, possessing tainted property and committing a public nuisance.

On the charge of robbery in company with personal violence to which she had pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months with an operational period of five years. Two hundred and sixty two days spent in presentence custody were declared as time served under that sentence.

In respect of the three counts of demanding property with menaces and the assaults simpliciter she was sentenced to six months imprisonment. In respect of all the remaining offences on indictment she was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a date for release on parole fixed at 11th of June 2007, that date being designed to coincide more or less with the non-suspended part of the sentence on the first count. No further penalty was imposed in respect of the summary matters.

The applicant was aged between 17 and 18 years at the time of the offences. Those charged on indictment arose out of five separate incidents over a 12 month period. The first of the offences occurred on the 30th of December 2004 when she was in company with her male cousin. They began an altercation with a young couple who seem not to have said or done anything particularly provocative. The applicant assaulted the female, holding her wrist and punching her three times in the face. She said, when interviewed later, that she did that because she thought the girl was being smart. That complainant sustained bruising to her right arm and cheek and a black eye.

Soon after that event the applicant approached a middle aged man using a public telephone, from behind took his mobile phone and ran off with it while her cousin hit the victim on the top of his lip with a hammer causing his lip to bleed. When interviewed the applicant said that it was her cousin's idea to steal the phone.

The…

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 Raea

Details

AGLC: R v Raea [2006] QCA 487
Case: [2006] QCA 487
Decision Date: 23/11/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maara Mourea Raea has appealed against her sentence following her convictions for multiple serious offences, including armed robbery, robbery with violence, assault, and drug-related offences. The applicant had committed these offences while on bail, and was aged between 17 and 18 years at the time of the offences. The appeal concerns the severity and appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The central legal issue was whether the original sentence adequately reflected the mitigating factors such as the applicant's young age, limited prior criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal considered relevant authorities and the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature and frequency of the offending while on bail, the harm caused to victims, and the applicant's demonstrated remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Court found that while the original sentences were not lenient, they were within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate. However, the Court noted that the sentences did not sufficiently recognise the applicant's youth, the potential for rehabilitation, and her demonstrated efforts to reform while in custody. The Court concluded that an earlier release on parole was warranted to give the applicant a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentences to reflect an earlier parole release date, while maintaining the overall structure of the original sentences to ensure public protection and deterrence.

Orders