R v RSG - [2023] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v RSG [2023] QCA 70

PARTIES:

R
v
RSG
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 178 of 2022
SC No 1702 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 August 2022 (Ryan J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 14 April 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 April 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Bond and Dalton JJA

ORDER:

Date of Order: 14 April 2023

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER – where the applicant was out with a group of friends carrying a knife – where the applicant’s group encountered another group of youths – where the applicant killed one youth from the other group by stabbing him in the chest and did grievous bodily harm to another youth by stabbing him in the back and chest – where the deceased and his group of friends did not provoke any interaction with the applicant’s group – where the applicant pled guilty to murder and to two counts of grievous bodily harm at the beginning of trial – where the killing and the infliction of grievous bodily harm were caught on CCTV – where the applicant was not scared or under any real threat when he stabbed the victims – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years detention on the murder count and concurrent sentences of four years each on the two counts of malicious act with intent – whether there were special circumstances which must have caused the sentencing judge to exercise her discretion to reduce the time the applicant spent in detention from 70 per cent to 50 per cent under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 227

R v KAL[2013] QCA 317, considered

COUNSEL:

A M Hoare for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bell Criminal Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS P: For the reasons given by Dalton JA, I joined in the Court’s order made on 14 April 2023 refusing the application for leave to appeal.
BOND JA: For the reasons given by Dalton JA, I joined in the making of the Court’s orders on 14 April 2023.
DALTON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence which was imposed under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). At the hearing of this application the Court made orders refusing the application. I give my reasons for joining in that order.
At age 15 the applicant was out with a group of friends. He carried a knife. His group of friends encountered another group of young men. That other group of young men did not know or have any interest in…

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 RSG

Details

AGLC: R v RSG [2023] QCA 70
Case: [2023] QCA 70
Decision Date: 21 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, RSG, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland, arguing that the sentence should have been reduced under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). RSG was convicted of murder and two counts of grievous bodily harm after a violent encounter between two groups of youths. The court was required to determine whether there were special circumstances that warranted reducing the time RSG spent in detention from 70 per cent to 50 per cent.

The court examined the principles governing the exercise of discretion to reduce a custodial sentence under the Youth Justice Act. It noted that the primary consideration was the need to ensure the sentence was proportionate to the offence and the offender. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the applicant's lack of provocation and the unprovoked nature of the attack, as well as the severity of the harm caused. The court also considered the applicant's background, age, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court concluded that, while the sentence was severe, it was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and there were no special circumstances that warranted a reduction in the time spent in detention.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and there were no special circumstances that warranted a reduction in the time spent in detention. The court noted that the applicant's background and prospects for rehabilitation did not provide a sufficient basis for reducing the sentence. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 14 April 2023

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 RSG [2023] QCA 70
PARTIES:	R v RSG (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 178 of 2022 SC No 1702 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 August 2022 (Ryan J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 14 April 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 April 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Bond and Dalton JJA
ORDER:	Date of Order: 14 April 2023 The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER – where the applicant was out with a group of friends carrying a knife – where the applicant’s group encountered another group of youths – where the applicant killed one youth from the other group by stabbing him in the chest and did grievous bodily harm to another youth by stabbing him in the back and chest – where the deceased and his group of friends did not provoke any interaction with the applicant’s group – where the applicant pled guilty to murder and to two counts of grievous bodily harm at the beginning of trial – where the killing and the infliction of grievous bodily harm were caught on CCTV – where the applicant was not scared or under any real threat when he stabbed the victims – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years detention on the murder count and concurrent sentences of four years each on the two counts of malicious act with intent – whether there were special circumstances which must have caused the sentencing judge to exercise her discretion to reduce the time the applicant spent in detention from 70 per cent to 50 per cent under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 227 R v KAL[2013] QCA 317, considered
COUNSEL:	A M Hoare for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bell Criminal Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent