R v TAO

In the case of R v TAO, the applicant was convicted of one offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company and two offences of robbery in company with personal violence. The applicant was sentenced to detention for 18 months suspended immediately for each count of robbery in company with violence, and to probation for 18 months for the count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company. The applicant appealed against the sentences on the ground that the recording of the convictions rendered the sentences manifestly excessive.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentencing discretion miscarried by reason of misapplication of principle, particularly in light of the applicant’s age, prospects of rehabilitation, and changes in her life subsequent to the offending. The applicant argued that the recording of convictions resulted in sentences that were manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The Crown contended that the recording of convictions represented a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion and that there was no misapplication of principle.

The court determined that the sentencing discretion miscarried by reason of misapplication of principle. The court considered the factors set out in the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court found that, notwithstanding the positive changes in the applicant’s life and her prospects of rehabilitation, the nature of the applicant’s previous offending and the nature of the offences rendered detention appropriate in the circumstances. However, the court concluded that the recording of convictions was inappropriate given the applicant’s age, prospects of rehabilitation, and changes in her life subsequent to the offending.

The court granted leave to appeal against sentence, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sentences to the extent that it ordered that no convictions be recorded.