SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Samuel (a pseudonym) [2024] QSC 11
PARTIES:
THE KING
v
SAMUEL (A PSEUDONYM)(defendant)
FILE NO:
Indictment No 1166 of 2023
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
Ex tempore on 24 January 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
21 December 2023
JUDGE:
Davis J
ORDERS:
1. The defendant is sentenced to a term of detention of three years.
2. The defendant be released after serving 50% of that period of detention.
3. The defendant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months.
4. Conviction recorded.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – OTHER CASES – where the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter – where the offence occurred when the defendant was 17 years old – where the defendant was subject to an online scam and attempted to commit suicide – where the defendant unlawfully killed another when attempting to commit suicide – where the defendants risk of reoffending is low – where there are good prospects of rehabilitation – whether a detention order ought to be imposed – whether special circumstances allow for early release from detention
Youth Justice Act 1992, s 150, s 152(e), s 162, s 176, s 183, s 184, s 221, s 222, s 223, s 227(1), s 227(2), Youth Justice Sentencing Principle 18
R v AS; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] QCA 259, considered
R v BXY [2023] QSC 42, cited
R v DBU (2021) 7 QR 453; [2021] QCA 51, followed
R v GBL [2023] QCA 104, cited
R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (2014) 247 A Crim R 582; [2014] QCA 345, followed
R v Kelly [1999] QCA 296, cited
R v LAL [2018] QCA 179, cited
R v Maygar; ex parte A-G; R v WT; ex parte A-G [2007] QCA 310, followed
R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General (2020) 3 Qd R 578; [2020] QCA 51, followed
R v YTZ; Ex parte Attorney-General Qld [2023] QCA 87, cited
Secretary for Justice v CMT [2021] 1 HKLRD 1; [2020] HCKA 939, citedCOUNSEL:
R J Marks for the Crown
C F Wilson for the defendantI Evans appeared for the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs
SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Hannay Lawyers for the defendant
Samuel, on 3 November 2023, you pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. You were 17 years and eight months of age at the time of the commission of the offence, and you are presently 19.
The circumstances of the offending are as follows.
On 9 August 2022, you were driving a Toyota Landcruiser Prado, fitted with a bull bar, northbound along Bells Creek Arterial Road, Corbould Park. Two collisions occurred involving the vehicle driven by you. One caused the death of…
Continue reading R v Samuel (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Samuel (a pseudonym) [2024] QSC 11
- Case
- [2024] QSC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the sentencing of a juvenile offender, specifically under section 183 of the relevant legislation. The court considered the factors outlined in section 184(1), including the nature of the offence, the defendant's age, any previous convictions, and the impact of recording a conviction on the defendant's future prospects. The court also had to weigh the principle of denunciation against the potential impact on the defendant's rehabilitation and employment opportunities.
In its reasoning, the court determined that a conviction should be recorded due to the seriousness of the offence and its tragic consequences. The court noted that the defendant had no previous convictions and there was no specific prejudice that a conviction would cause. While acknowledging the principle of denunciation, the court concluded that recording a conviction was necessary to reflect the community's revulsion at the crime. The court also imposed a term of detention of three years, with early release after serving 50% of that period. Additionally, the defendant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months.
The final orders of the court included sentencing the defendant to a term of detention of three years, releasing the defendant after serving 50% of that period, disqualifying the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for 18 months, and recording a conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant is sentenced to a term of detention of three years.
2. The defendant be released after serving 50% of that period of detention.
3. The defendant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months.
4. Conviction recorded.
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
Questions arise as to whether a conviction ought to be recorded. That discretion arises under section 183, and the relevant considerations to the exercise of that discretion are prescribed by section 184(1) as follows:“184 Considerations whether or not to record conviction(1) In considering whether or not to record a conviction, a court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including—(a) the nature of the offence; and(b) the child’s age and any previous convictions; and(c) the impact the recording of a conviction will have on the child’s chances of—(i) rehabilitation generally; or (ii) finding or retaining employment.” I have already made comments about the nature and seriousness of the offence. The recording of a conviction in your case is significant because you have no previous convictions. However, you point to no specific prejudice that recording a conviction would inflict. You have employment and there is no suggestion that your employer would take any action against you, based on the conviction. There is no real suggestion that you will enter an industry where the conviction is likely to have an impact on employment prospects. There are various statements in the cases that offences committed by children may be such as to be so inherently serious that a conviction must be recorded, see R v LAL[12] and R v GBL[13]. In R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General[14], a case I have already mentioned, President Sofronoff spoke of the principle of denunciation in terms of ‘the community’s revulsion at the crime and its consequences’. His Honour then observed:“That revulsion is partly manifested by the public record that is a conviction. It is true, as counsel for Patrick urged, that the recording of a conviction may affect Patrick’s future employment prospects but in a case like the present, that does not outweigh the justification for recording, as a conviction, the community’s denunciation of the offending act, notwithstanding that it was committed by a child in the circumstances in which Patrick found himself.”[12][2018] QCA 179. [13][2023] QCA 104. [14](2020) 3 Qd R 578. Those comments were adopted by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v CMT[15]. [15][2021] 1 HKLRD 1 at [54]. Given the nature and seriousness of the offending, its tragic consequences, and the lack of specific prejudice attending to the recording of a conviction, a conviction ought to be recorded. The last question is whether, and for how long, he ought to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. The offending was a most egregious breach of the privilege of being allowed to drive a motor vehicle. You ought to be disqualified for a period of 18 months. I order that:1. The defendant is sentenced to a term of detention of three years. 2. The defendant be released after serving 50% of that period of detention. 3. The defendant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months. 4. Conviction recorded.