R v Samuel (a pseudonym) - [2020] QChC 43

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Samuel (a pseudonym) [2020] QChC 43

PARTIES:

SAMUEL (a pseudonym)

(Applicant )

v

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:
348/20

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Cairns Childrens Court

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2020

JUDGES:

Richards P

ORDER:

The Application be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCING JUVENILES – where the child was sentenced to six offences – where the child was sentenced to 3 months detention to be served by way of conditional release order for 3 months – where the child was 13 years old at the time of the offences and 14 years old at the time of sentence – where the child was subject to various orders at the time of offending – where the child had a lengthy and relevant criminal history – where a pre-sentence report was prepared – where the pre-sentence report indicated the child was intoxicated at the time of offending and did not wish to discuss the impact of the offending on the victims – where the child committed the offences 9 days after being placed on a 12 month probation order - whether the learned Magistrate placed undue weight on the child’s criminal history as opposed to the actual offending – whether the learned Magistrate placed insufficient weight on the period of remand – whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION:

s150 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)

CASES:
The Queen v SCU [2017] QCA 198
R v RBB [2019] QCA 277

DSN v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QChC 28

DSN v the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions No. 2 [2020] QChC 29

SOLICITORS:
Ms L Maleckas, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the respondent
Ms R Cavalli, Legal Aid for the applicant

The applicant was convicted on 4 September 2020 and sentenced on 16 September 2020 to three months’ detention to be served by way of a conditional release order for three months. No conviction was recorded. He had pleaded guilty to three charges of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, two charges of driving without a license and entering a dwelling and commit an indictable offence. He had served 28 days on remand.
The circumstances of the offences are that on 16 August 2020 he was a passenger in a stolen vehicle (unlawful use of a motor vehicle) then later that day he drove that vehicle before being dropped off (unlawful use of a motor vehicle). He was in the car for about 30 to 45 minutes (unlawful use a motor vehicle, unlicensed driving). On 19 August 2020 he entered a home through the rear sliding door and stole car keys. He and another child then left the unit, entered the car with the keys and he drove it away (enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, unlawful use of 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 Samuel (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Samuel (a pseudonym) [2020] QChC 43
Case: [2020] QChC 43
Decision Date: 3 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Samuel, a pseudonym for a juvenile offender, was heard in the appellate court where the defendant appealed against his sentence. The juvenile, who was 13 years old at the time of the offences and 14 at the time of sentencing, was convicted on six counts of various criminal activities. He was sentenced to three months detention under a conditional release order. At the time of the offending, the child was subject to various orders and had a significant criminal history. A pre-sentence report was prepared which indicated that the child was intoxicated during the offences and did not wish to discuss the impact of the offending on the victims. The appeal was based on the argument that the Magistrate had placed undue emphasis on the defendant's criminal history rather than the nature of the offences and that insufficient weight was given to the period the defendant had spent in remand. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the offending.

The appellate court examined whether the Magistrate appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The court considered the defendant’s age, criminal history, the nature of the offences, and the circumstances surrounding the offending, including the pre-sentence report. The court found that the Magistrate had adequately considered the relevant factors, including the defendant's intoxication at the time of the offences and his failure to express remorse. The court concluded that the sentence, while harsh, was within the range of acceptable outcomes given the circumstances and did not constitute a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no error in the Magistrate's sentencing process.

Given the findings of the appellate court, the application was dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence, affirming that the Magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion in considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the defendant’s criminal history and the period of remand. The court emphasised the importance of tailoring the sentence to the individual circumstances of the offender while also considering broader community interests. The outcome reflects the judiciary's careful consideration of juvenile sentencing, balancing rehabilitation with the need for accountability.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application be 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 Samuel (a pseudonym) [2020] QChC 43
PARTIES:	SAMUEL (a pseudonym) (Applicant ) v OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	348/20
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Cairns Childrens Court
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2020
JUDGES:	Richards P
ORDER:	The Application be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCING JUVENILES – where the child was sentenced to six offences – where the child was sentenced to 3 months detention to be served by way of conditional release order for 3 months – where the child was 13 years old at the time of the offences and 14 years old at the time of sentence – where the child was subject to various orders at the time of offending – where the child had a lengthy and relevant criminal history – where a pre-sentence report was prepared – where the pre-sentence report indicated the child was intoxicated at the time of offending and did not wish to discuss the impact of the offending on the victims – where the child committed the offences 9 days after being placed on a 12 month probation order - whether the learned Magistrate placed undue weight on the child’s criminal history as opposed to the actual offending – whether the learned Magistrate placed insufficient weight on the period of remand – whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive
LEGISLATION:	s150 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)
CASES:	The Queen v SCU [2017] QCA 198 R v RBB [2019] QCA 277 DSN v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] QChC 28 DSN v the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions No. 2 [2020] QChC 29
SOLICITORS:	Ms L Maleckas, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the respondent Ms R Cavalli, Legal Aid for the applicant