R v SDW - [2022] QCA 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SDW [2022] QCA 241

PARTIES:

R
v
SDW
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 163 of 2022
DC No 29 of 2022
DC No 31 of 2022
DC No 39 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 4 August 2022 (Lynham DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 31 October 2022
Date of Publication of Reasons: 2 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Bond JA and Crow J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 31 October 2022

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   Set aside the sentences on each of the charges on indictments 29/22 and 31/22.

4.   Order that the applicant be detained for a period of 148 days for each offence on those indictments.

5.   Convictions not recorded.

6.   Confirm the sentence of 18 months’ probation for the charges on indictment 39/22 and that convictions not recorded.

7.   Reasons to be published at a later date.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to 16 offences across three indictments, which had taken place over five days in a three-month period – where the offences involved, inter alia, stealing, property damage, assault, breaking and entering and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant fell to be sentenced according to the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention for each of the three most serious counts – where the applicant was sentenced to six months’ detention for each of the remaining counts – where each period of detention was ordered to be served concurrently – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant be released after serving 50 per cent of the period of detention – where no convictions were recorded – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – where the applicant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to 16 offences across three indictments, which had taken place over five days in a three-month period – where the offences involved, inter alia, stealing, property damage, assault, breaking and entering and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant fell to be sentenced according to the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – where a pre-sentence report identified various sentencing options open in respect of the applicant – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention for each of the three most serious counts and six months’ detention for each of the remaining counts, to be served concurrently – whether the sentencing judge erred in not explaining why the other sentencing options reasonably available in the pre-sentence report were not taken before imposing a sentence of detention in accordance…

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 SDW

Details

AGLC: R v SDW [2022] QCA 241
Case: [2022] QCA 241
Decision Date: 31 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SDW involved a juvenile applicant who pleaded guilty to 16 offences across three separate indictments, spanning a period of five days within a three-month timeframe. The offences included stealing, property damage, assault, breaking and entering, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The applicant was sentenced under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), receiving 15 months’ detention for the three most serious counts and six months’ detention for the remaining counts, with each period of detention to be served concurrently. The sentencing judge ordered that the applicant be released after serving 50 per cent of the detention period, and no convictions were recorded.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the applicant's appeal against the sentence, questioning whether it was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was a miscarriage in the sentencing discretion. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge erred in not explaining the reasons for not considering other sentencing options available as per the pre-sentence report before imposing the detention sentences under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld).

The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive, primarily due to the failure of the sentencing judge to adequately address the other sentencing options available to the applicant as identified in the pre-sentence report. The court held that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently explain why the alternative sentencing options were not considered. This omission was seen as a significant error, leading to the conclusion that the sentencing discretion had miscarried. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences on two of the indictments were set aside. The applicant was to be detained for 148 days for each offence on those indictments, with no convictions recorded. The sentence of 18 months’ probation for the remaining charges was confirmed, with no convictions recorded as well.

The final orders included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, setting aside certain sentences, ordering specific detention periods, and confirming other sentences with no convictions recorded. The reasons for the decision were to be published at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 31 October 2022

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Set aside the sentences on each of the charges on indictments 29/22 and 31/22.

4. Order that the applicant be detained for a period of 148 days for each offence on those indictments.

5. Convictions not recorded.

6. Confirm the sentence of 18 months’ probation for the charges on indictment 39/22 and that convictions not recorded.

7. Reasons to be published at a later date.

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 SDW [2022] QCA 241
PARTIES:	R v SDW (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 163 of 2022 DC No 29 of 2022 DC No 31 of 2022 DC No 39 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 4 August 2022 (Lynham DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 31 October 2022 Date of Publication of Reasons: 2 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 October 2022
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Bond JA and Crow J
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 31 October 2022 1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Set aside the sentences on each of the charges on indictments 29/22 and 31/22. 4. Order that the applicant be detained for a period of 148 days for each offence on those indictments. 5. Convictions not recorded. 6. Confirm the sentence of 18 months’ probation for the charges on indictment 39/22 and that convictions not recorded. 7. Reasons to be published at a later date.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to 16 offences across three indictments, which had taken place over five days in a three-month period – where the offences involved, inter alia, stealing, property damage, assault, breaking and entering and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant fell to be sentenced according to the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention for each of the three most serious counts – where the applicant was sentenced to six months’ detention for each of the remaining counts – where each period of detention was ordered to be served concurrently – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant be released after serving 50 per cent of the period of detention – where no convictions were recorded – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – where the applicant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to 16 offences across three indictments, which had taken place over five days in a three-month period – where the offences involved, inter alia, stealing, property damage, assault, breaking and entering and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant fell to be sentenced according to the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – where a pre-sentence report identified various sentencing options open in respect of the applicant – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention for each of the three most serious counts and six months’ detention for each of the remaining counts, to be served concurrently – whether the sentencing judge erred in not explaining why the other sentencing options reasonably available in the pre-sentence report were not taken before imposing a sentence of detention in accordance…