R v Rizos - [1994] QCA 581

GEORGE RIZOS	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 02/12/94

COURT OF APPEAL

[1994] QCA 581

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

DOWSETT J

CA No 449 of 1994
THE QUEEN
v.

JUDGMENT leave to appeal against a sentence imposed under the Juvenile Justice Act in the District Court in Toowoomba in respect of a charge, to which he pleaded guilty, of riot with circumstances of aggravation. The events surrounding the offence occurred on 19 March 1994 at about 7.15 p.m. when what may be described in a neutral way as trouble began among a section of the boys at the Westbrook Detention Centre.

The misconduct developed to the point where damage was done to the building itself including the smashing of windows and the destruction of other property such as furniture and the starting of fires. The applicant was, at the time, in the remand section and he was heard banging on the door of his room calling out "Let me out, I want to blow something up".

Eventually the door to his room was opened and the applicant joined others in the institution who were misbehaving. The applicant was seen to be smashing windows, lights, other fittings, doors and parts of the plumbing. He was observed to be lighting fires and at one stage was seen to be dragging a lighted towel around the concrete floor inside the cell blocks.

He was also seen with an iron bar breaking glass in the dormitory and hitting the door and the roof. He struck an alarm box saying, "That takes care of the riot alarm". He was also seen in company with some seven others equipping

JUDGMENT

themselves with steel rods from louvres and smashing windows, riot. It should be noted that the riot had started before the applicant was released from his cell, but the Crown Prosecutor at the sentencing proceedings submitted that the culpability of the offenders was in an ascending or descending scale of seriousness, in which the applicant fitted near the top of the second category, there being more serious categories above and below that class of offender.

lights, fittings, doors and plumbing within the area.

On the application, no challenge was made to any of the relevant facts of the offence, but the complaint is directed to the sentence which was imposed, which is said to be excessive. The sentence which the Judge imposed in this case on an occasion when a number of the participants in the riot were dealt with was, in respect of the applicant, detention for eight months with a recommendation for early release after serving 50 per cent of that sentence.

The contention of the applicant is that the sentence should be set aside entirely and that there should be an immediate release order coupled perhaps with probation, community service or the like. The applicant was 15 years old at the time of the offence and 16 at the date of sentencing. He had never previously been dealt with for an offence although he had committed…

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 Rizos

Details

AGLC: R v Rizos [1994] QCA 581
Case: [1994] QCA 581
Decision Date: 2/12/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rizos, the applicant, George Rizos, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed under the Juvenile Justice Act in the District Court in Toowoomba. The applicant had pleaded guilty to a charge of riot with circumstances of aggravation, which involved significant damage to property at the Westbrook Detention Centre. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the severity of the sentence imposed, which was detention for eight months with a recommendation for early release after serving 50% of that sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and should be set aside with an order for immediate release, possibly coupled with probation or community service.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was appropriate given the applicant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and the remorse he had shown. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge had taken into account relevant factors such as the applicant's behavior during sentencing and the transcripts of previous sentencing hearings. The court examined these issues in detail, concluding that the sentence was appropriate and necessary as a deterrent for such serious offences. The judges found no evidence that the sentencing judge had unfairly considered the supplementary report or the transcripts of previous hearings in arriving at the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, with the judges agreeing that the sentence imposed was appropriate and should not be altered.

The court's reasoning was that the offence involved a significant disturbance in a detention centre, justifying a deterrent sentence. The applicant's prior good record and remorse were acknowledged, but these factors alone were insufficient to warrant a lesser sentence. The recommendation for early release after serving 50% of the sentence was the maximum permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court found no basis for interfering with the sentence, affirming the decision of the lower court.

Orders