R v SAT - [2006] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SAT [2006] QCA 070

PARTIES:

R
v
SAT
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 321 of 2005
DC No 33 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Warwick

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

13 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
2. Set aside the recording of a conviction

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where the applicant pleaded guilty to indecently dealing with a child under 16 years – where at the time of the offence, the applicant was aged 17, the complainant was aged 15, and they had been close friends for at least four years prior to the incident - where a period of probation was ordered and a conviction recorded – where the offending was considered to be at the lower end of the scale for indecent treatment cases - where the applicant was of otherwise good character and had made genuine attempts to mitigate the damage he had caused – whether in the circumstances a conviction should have been recorded

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(1), s 12(2)

R v Brown; ex parte Attorney-General [1993] QCA 271; [1994] 2 Qd R 182, considered
R v Cay, Gersch, and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 467; CA No 241 of 2005, 14 December 2005, considered
R v K; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] QCA 427; CA 321 of 1997, 28 October 1997, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 10 November 2005 to indecently dealing with a child under 16 years. A conviction was recorded and he was placed on probation for a period of 12 months. On this application for leave to appeal against sentence the only issue is whether or not a conviction ought to have been recorded.

There were a number of unusual features about this case. The offence was committed on 28 November 2001. It was made known to members of the families of both the complainant and the applicant the following day. However, no complaint was made to police until more than three years later when the complainant girl turned 18 years.

At the time of the offence, the applicant was aged 17 having been born on 16 August 1984. He was therefore 21 years of age at the time of sentence. At the material time, the complainant was aged 15 and she and the applicant had been close friends for…

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 SAT

Details

AGLC: R v SAT [2006] QCA 70
Case: [2006] QCA 70
Decision Date: 13 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SAT, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that a conviction should not have been recorded in light of the circumstances of the offence and his otherwise good character. SAT had pleaded guilty to indecently dealing with a child under 16 years of age. The applicant was 17 years old at the time of the offence, while the complainant was 15 years old. They had been close friends for at least four years before the incident. The court ordered a period of probation and recorded a conviction. The applicant argued that the offence was at the lower end of the scale for indecent treatment cases and that he had made genuine attempts to mitigate the damage caused. The central legal issue in this appeal was whether, considering the specific circumstances of the offence, the applicant's age at the time, his otherwise good character, and his efforts to mitigate the consequences, a conviction should have been recorded.

The court examined the principles governing the recording of convictions in cases involving young offenders and the discretion of the sentencing judge in such matters. It considered the nature of the offence, the age of the offender and the victim, the relationship between the parties, and the offender's character and remorse. The court concluded that in light of the specific circumstances, including the close relationship between the parties and the offender's attempts to mitigate the damage caused, the sentencing judge had discretion to not record a conviction. The court found that the judge had exercised this discretion inappropriately, and that the recording of a conviction was not warranted in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence and set aside the recording of a conviction. This decision underscores the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case, including the relationship between the offender and the victim, in determining whether a conviction should be recorded, particularly in cases involving young offenders. The court's decision highlights the need for careful consideration of the sentencing options available to the judge and the importance of proportionality in sentencing decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Set aside the recording of a conviction

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 SAT [2006] QCA 070
PARTIES:	R v SAT (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 321 of 2005 DC No 33 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Warwick
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	13 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Set aside the recording of a conviction
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where the applicant pleaded guilty to indecently dealing with a child under 16 years – where at the time of the offence, the applicant was aged 17, the complainant was aged 15, and they had been close friends for at least four years prior to the incident - where a period of probation was ordered and a conviction recorded – where the offending was considered to be at the lower end of the scale for indecent treatment cases - where the applicant was of otherwise good character and had made genuine attempts to mitigate the damage he had caused – whether in the circumstances a conviction should have been recorded Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(1), s 12(2) R v Brown; ex parte Attorney-General [1993] QCA 271; [1994] 2 Qd R 182, considered R v Cay, Gersch, and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 467; CA No 241 of 2005, 14 December 2005, considered R v K; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] QCA 427; CA 321 of 1997, 28 October 1997, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent