R v S - [2003] QCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v S [2003] QCA 55
PARTIES: R v S (applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 424 of 2002
DC No 3408 of 2002
DC No 3409 of 2002
DC No 3410 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON: 20 February 2003
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 20 February 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY
CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant and first co-
offender convicted for one count of torture and one count of
deprivation of liberty – where applicant and co-offender
juvenile offenders - where applicant further convicted of
additional criminal and property offences - whether sentence
manifestly excessive particularly when regard is had to the
sentenced imposed on the first co-offender
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 109, s 109 (2)(e), s 4 (a)
COUNSEL: K M McGinness for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, a juvenile, and his co- offenders R and O, pleaded not guilty on the 2nd of November 2002 to one count of torture and one count of deprivation of liberty on one indictment. They were each convicted after a jury trial on both counts. The applicant then pleaded guilty to the additional counts of four counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; five counts of stealing; one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation; one count of assault occasioning bodily harm; one count of break, enter and steal; one count of attempting to enter premises on a second indictment; one count of entering premises with intent; one count of receiving; and one count of attempted fraud on a third indictment.

He was sentenced on 13 December 2002 to 15 months' detention on each count and it was declared that one day held in presentence custody be time served under the sentence. Convictions were recorded.

The applicant contends this sentence is manifestly excessive, particularly when regard is had to the sentence imposed on the co-offender R. The applicant was 15 at the time of the torture offence and 16 at sentence. His co-offender R was 16 at the time of the offence and his co-offender O was 13 or 14. R has a lengthy criminal history but no offences for violence and had previously benefited from community-based orders. He was sentenced to six months' detention with a conviction recorded and to a 12 month probation period. O, who had no previous convictions, was sentenced to six months' detention to be served by way of an immediate release order with no conviction recorded.

The applicant, like R, had a lengthy criminal history. He…

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 S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2003] QCA 55
Case: [2003] QCA 55
Decision Date: 20/02/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v S, the applicants, who had been convicted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sought an appeal against their sentences. The applicants had been convicted of various criminal charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the severity and proportionality of the sentences handed down by the trial judge.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentences imposed were excessive or manifestly inadequate, in light of the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions. The applicants argued that the sentences were disproportionate given the circumstances of the case and the personal backgrounds of the applicants. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentences were appropriate and reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for consistency, proportionality, and deterrence. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants. The Court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and had exercised proper judicial discretion in determining the sentences. Consequently, the Court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The Court emphasised the importance of allowing the trial judge's sentencing discretion to stand, absent any error in the application of the law or material irregularity in the process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 S [2003] QCA 55
PARTIES:	R v S (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 424 of 2002 DC No 3408 of 2002 DC No 3409 of 2002 DC No 3410 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON:	20 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant and first co- offender convicted for one count of torture and one count of deprivation of liberty – where applicant and co-offender juvenile offenders - where applicant further convicted of additional criminal and property offences - whether sentence manifestly excessive particularly when regard is had to the sentenced imposed on the first co-offender
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 109, s 109 (2)(e), s 4 (a)
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the respondent