R v S - [2000] QCA 364

[2000] QCA 364

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
MUIR J
JONES J

CA No 164 of 2000

THE QUEEN

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/09/2000

JUDGMENT

JONES J: The applicant was born on 30 November 1985 and is therefore 14 years and 10 months old. On 16 October 1999, shortly before his fourteenth birthday he committed a number of offences which led to an order being made that he be detained.

For two offences of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company the period of detention was for 18 months. For two offences of common assault and an offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle the period was 12 months. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

He was dealt with also at that time for three summary offences, one of which occurred on that same day and the other two on 2 October and 19 October 1999 respectively. Convictions were recorded for these offences but no penalty was imposed.

The applicant pleaded guilty to all these offences on 26 May 2000 before the District Court at Ipswich. He was, at the time, represented by counsel. Also present in Court were Mrs Stewart on behalf of the Department of Families Youth and Community Care and importantly the applicant's paternal grandmother.

For a young person the applicant acquired an alarming criminal record in the period of nine months between January and October 1999 prior to the commission of the offences with which we are now concerned. Bearing in mind he was only 13 years of age I shall tabulate these in the order in which they were committed and the penalties each attracted.

1.21 January; attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle. He was cautioned.

2.23 January; break entering and stealing and wilful damage to property and receiving of stolen property. Again, he was cautioned.

3.17 February; unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Probation for 12 months.

4.14 March; disorderly behaviour. Reprimanded.

5.17 March; unlawful entry of a motor vehicle. Good behaviour bond for three months.

6.20 March; being drunk in a public place. Reprimanded.

7.28 March; common assault. 40 hours community service.

8.1 April; three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. Probation for 12 months.

9.6 April; assaults occasioning bodily harm and damage to property. Good behaviour bond for six months, and

10.8 May; unlawful use of a motor vehicle. A new probation order for 12 months.

Whilst awaiting for these offences to be dealt with the applicant breached his bail undertaking on 12 May and 28 May and for so doing was placed on a further good behaviour bond for three months.

11.12 June; use insulting words and obstruct police officer. Community Service for 60 hours.

The applicant was dealt with for that last offence on 16 September. On 2 October one of the subject offences of unlicensed driving occurred.

Turning now to 16 October 1999, the offences of assault whilst armed and in company and common assault occurred when the applicant, with a co-offender, followed a…

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 [2000] QCA 364
Case: [2000] QCA 364
Decision Date: 08/09/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v S, the Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant, who was a minor at the time of the offences. The applicant had been convicted of multiple serious offences including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company, common assault, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The trial judge, after considering various sentencing options, ordered detention for a period of 18 months, to be served concurrently with another 12-month sentence for previous offences. The applicant's history revealed a series of escalating offences committed over a short period, indicating a pattern of severe antisocial behaviour.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in ordering detention as the appropriate penalty for the applicant, given the other available sentencing options. The Court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or whether the trial judge had adequately considered the rehabilitation of the applicant and the interests of the community. The Court had to balance the need for deterrence and protection of the community against the principles of juvenile justice aimed at rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Pincus, Muir, and Jones JJ, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. They found that the trial judge had considered the appropriate sentencing options and had concluded that detention was the only viable option to ensure adequate control over the applicant. The Court observed that the applicant's previous attempts at rehabilitation had failed, and his behaviour was described as "out of control." The Court also noted the lack of a supportive family environment and the applicant's resistance to any form of structured living arrangement. The judges agreed that the sentence, while not lenient, was within the appropriate range considering the severity of the offences and the applicant's history. Therefore, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision and refused the application for leave to appeal.

Orders