Childrens Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 17 January 2017 (Burnett DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
8 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 May 2017
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Set aside the order that convictions of the three offences on the indictment be recorded, and substitute an order that the convictions not be recorded.
3. Set aside the sentence for count 3 on the indictment and substitute a sentence that the applicant be detained for a period of 12 months, commencing on 29 November 2016.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of stealing, attempting to enter premises with intent and wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a building – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of two years’ imprisonment – where the applicant is to be released after serving 50 per cent of his sentence – where the applicant is a 17 year old Aboriginal child with a history of committing minor offences – where the primary court received reports from a community justice group and a youth service recommending that the applicant be released from custody – whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to these reports and the circumstances of the applicant as required by the Youth Justice Act – where the Youth Justice Act stipulates that detention should only be imposed as a last resort – whether it was appropriate to incarcerate the applicant
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the sentencing judge recorded a conviction against the applicant – where the Youth Justice Act requires the court to consider the circumstances of the offender when determining whether to record a conviction – whether it was appropriate to record a conviction against the applicant
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984 (Qld), s 19 Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 176, s 183, s 184, s 208, s 219, s 220, s 221, s 223, s 227(2) Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld), s 9, s 12, s 25 Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2016 (Qld), s 16, s 26, s 56
[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 SCU
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v SCU [2017] QCA 198
Case
[2017] QCA 198
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v SCU involved the applicant who was convicted of stealing, attempting to enter premises with intent, and wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a building. The court sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 50 per cent. The applicant, a 17-year-old Aboriginal child with a history of minor offences, appealed against the sentence and the recording of convictions, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that recording convictions was inappropriate.
The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to the circumstances of the applicant, including reports from a community justice group and a youth service, which recommended that the applicant not be detained. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it was appropriate to record a conviction against the applicant, given the Youth Justice Act's requirement that the court must consider the circumstances of the offender and that detention should only be imposed as a last resort.
In addressing these issues, the court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the reports and the circumstances of the applicant, which were significant in light of the Youth Justice Act's principles. The court also found that it was inappropriate to record convictions against the applicant. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order to record convictions, and substituted a sentence that the applicant be detained for 12 months, commencing on 29 November 2016.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Set aside the order that convictions of the three offences on the indictment be recorded, and substitute an order that the convictions not be recorded.
3. Set aside the sentence for count 3 on the indictment and substitute a sentence that the applicant be detained for a period of 12 months, commencing on 29 November 2016.