R v T - [2003] QCA 484

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v T [2003] QCA 484

PARTIES:

R v T (applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 279 of 2003 DC No 263 of 2003 DC No 264 of 2003 CC No 8 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

4 November 2003
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 4 November 2003
JUDGE: McPherson and Williams JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgement of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS: 1. Grant the application
2. Allow the appeal
3. Set aside each of the sentences and in lieu make a detention order against the applicant for 12 months
4. Declare that 105 days spent in presentence custody between 19 September 2002 and 22 October 2002, 9 November 2002 and 11 November 2002, 23 November 2002 and 25 November 2002, and 27 December 2002 and 5 March 2003 be deemed time already served under the sentences

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER SENTENCE – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where applicant was sentenced as a juvenile to 15 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of enter dwelling with intent, one count common assault, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of attempted robbery with actual violence - where sentencing a juvenile requires that a detention order be imposed for the shortest appropriate period – having regard to the insufficient weight given to the guilty pleas the shortest appropriate period of detention would have been 12 months – appeal allowed

COUNSEL:

T Moynihan for the applicant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MULLINS J: The applicant, who was born on 23 April 1987, was sentenced as a juvenile on 15 August 2003 after pleading guilty to one count of enter dwelling with intent, one count of common assault, both of which were committed on 12 August 2002; one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, which was committed on 25 August 2002; and one count of attempted robbery with actual violence, which was committed on 19 November 2002.

He was sentenced to 15 months' detention for each offence and a declaration was made that 105 days' presentence custody was time already served under the sentences.

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the sentences on the basis that the learned sentencing Judge failed to adequately take into account the pleas of guilty and that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The facts of the enter with intent and common assault were and then the applicant punched the complainant to the inside of his elbow and the applicant ran from the house.

that at 7.30 p.m. the applicant entered the home of the
68-year-old complainant and his wife through a screen door and
demanded money.

The unlawful use of a motor vehicle offence arose out of…

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 T

Details

AGLC: R v T [2003] QCA 484
Case: [2003] QCA 484
Decision Date: 4/11/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v T involved the appellant, a juvenile, who was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to multiple criminal charges. The charges included entering a dwelling with intent, common assault, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and attempted robbery with actual violence. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that insufficient weight was given to his early guilty pleas, which warranted a lesser sentence. The appeal was heard by the relevant court, which was tasked with assessing whether the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.

The legal issues central to this appeal were whether the sentence imposed was too severe given the mitigating factors such as the juvenile’s early guilty pleas and the need to impose the shortest appropriate period of detention. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence adequately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors and whether the sentencing process appropriately weighed the plea discounts.

The court, in its judgment, highlighted that when sentencing a juvenile, it is crucial to impose a detention order for the shortest appropriate period. It found that the original sentence did not sufficiently account for the mitigating effect of the early guilty pleas. Given the nature of the offences and the mitigating factors, the court determined that the shortest appropriate period of detention should have been 12 months rather than 15 months. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 12 months.

The court ordered that the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment be reduced to 12 months, reflecting the appropriate balance between the seriousness of the crimes committed and the mitigating factors present in the case. This ruling underscores the importance of appropriately considering all mitigating factors, particularly early guilty pleas, in sentencing juveniles.

Orders

Orders of the court

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 T [2003] QCA 484
PARTIES:	R v T (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 279 of 2003 DC No 263 of 2003 DC No 264 of 2003 CC No 8 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	4 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 November 2003
JUDGE:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgement of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER SENTENCE – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where applicant was sentenced as a juvenile to 15 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of enter dwelling with intent, one count common assault, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of attempted robbery with actual violence - where sentencing a juvenile requires that a detention order be imposed for the shortest appropriate period – having regard to the insufficient weight given to the guilty pleas the shortest appropriate period of detention would have been 12 months – appeal allowed
COUNSEL:	T Moynihan for the applicant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent