R v v - [2003] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v V [2003] QCA 101
PARTIES: R
v

V 10
(applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 20 of 2003
DC No 167 of 2002
DC No 175 of 2002
DC No 59 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application

ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 12 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 12 March 2003
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Davies and Williams JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, 30
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence
granted

2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of setting aside
orders recording convictions in respect of all offences
except in relation to the count of armed robbery in
company

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT -
SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT - PARITY - CO-OFFENDERS -
DISCRIMINATION CO-OFFENDERS - where applicant
sentenced to 12 months detention, three years probation and
community service - where co-offender sentenced to six
months detention - where applicant 12 months older than co-

offender, brandished a knife in respect of one offence and had 50
a substantially greater prior criminal history than co-offender
- whether sentence manifestly excessive
Juvenile Justices Act (Qld) 1992, s 125
R v D [2003] QCA 32; CA No 375 of 2002, 14 February
2003, cited
1 60

COUNSEL: R A East for applicant/appellant
B G Campbell for respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I would invite Justice Davies to deliver	10
the first judgment.
DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Mackay on 21 January 2003 to a total of 37 offences. The
20
most serious of these was one of armed robbery in company on 9
March 2002. The others were one of entering premises and
stealing on 19 March 2002 and twenty four offences of burglary
and stealing, one of burglary, five of burglary by breaking, four of stealing and one of attempted burglary all between 1 July 2002 and 2 August 2002. The learned sentencing judge	30
also dealt with offences for which probation and community service had been ordered in a Children's Court on 12 December 2001 and for which probation was ordered in the District Court on 12 June 2002.
40
The applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 12
months detention, three years probation and 187.5 hours
community service. The maximum period of detention, which was
one of 12 months, was imposed in respect of the offence of
armed robbery. The probation and community service were	50
imposed in respect of lesser offences. 165 days were declared to be served under the sentence, which Mr Campbell has pointed out that of the period required to be actually served, there

will be only ninety days in effect required to be served. having been born…

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 v

Details

AGLC: R v v [2003] QCA 101
Case: [2003] QCA 101
Decision Date: 12/03/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a criminal appeal brought by the respondent, who had been convicted of an offence. The respondent sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was heard by a panel of judges in the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. The legal issues before the court related to the severity of the sentence and whether it was excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. The respondent argued that the sentence was too harsh and should be reduced, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was justified and appropriate.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also examined the particular circumstances of the case and the respondent's personal circumstances. The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and not in accordance with the principles of sentencing. The court held that the sentence should be reduced to a more appropriate level, taking into account the relevant factors and principles. The court granted the respondent leave to appeal against the sentence, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the principles of sentencing and the particular circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was too harsh and did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and appropriate to the offence committed and the circumstances of the offender. The court's decision highlights the need for careful consideration of the principles of sentencing and the particular circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence

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.

COUNSEL:	R A East for applicant/appellant B G Campbell for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent