R v VL - [2018] QCA 339

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v VL [2018] QCA 339

PARTIES:

R
v
VL
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 254 of 2018
DC No 19 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 12 September 2018 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Mullins J

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was a youth offender – where the applicant was sentenced to two years detention to serve 50 per cent of that period of detention – where the applicant and complainant were in a relationship – where the complainant believed that she was pregnant and the applicant urged her to get an abortion – where the applicant stabbed the complainant four times while she was sleeping – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending and 17 years and nine months old at the time of sentence – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge failed to take into account that the applicant would serve part of his sentence in an adult correctional facility – whether the learned sentencing judge ought to have expressly taken into account that the applicant would be removed to an adult facility while serving his sentence

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 276B, s 276D, s 276F

R v BBN[2008] QCA 84, cited
R v CAC[2006] QCA 191, cited
R v S[1999] QCA 499, cited

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the applicant
D Kovac for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: When the applicant was 16 years old he began a relationship with the complainant, a 15 year old girl. About six months later the complainant thought that she was pregnant. According to the agreed statement of facts, the applicant “freaked out” at this news and told the complainant that she needed to have an abortion.
On 23 September 2017, the young couple had an argument. The applicant wanted to go to a basketball game but he had already promised the complainant that he would stay with her for the whole day. He decided to go to the basketball game anyway. He assured her that he would go back to her house after the game had finished. From the time of his departure until late that night they continued their argument by way of text messages. Partly, they argued about the pregnancy.
Very late on that night, at about 12.30 am, the applicant arrived at the complainant’s home. She lived there with her mother and father. In her room they continued arguing. The applicant asked the complainant for a glass…

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 VL

Details

AGLC: R v VL [2018] QCA 339
Case: [2018] QCA 339
Decision Date: 7 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v VL involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of grievous bodily harm, inflicted upon the complainant, his former partner. The incident occurred when the applicant, aged 16 at the time, stabbed the complainant four times while she was asleep, following a dispute about her pregnancy and his urging her to have an abortion. The applicant was subsequently sentenced to two years' detention, with a requirement to serve 50 per cent of that term. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the fact that part of the sentence would be served in an adult correctional facility.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the sentencing judge's failure to expressly consider that the applicant would serve part of his sentence in an adult facility constituted a ground for interference with the sentence. The court needed to determine whether this omission was significant enough to warrant a departure from the general rule that appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with sentencing decisions unless there is a clear error in principle or an error that results in a manifestly unjust sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the omission of expressly considering that the applicant would serve part of his sentence in an adult facility was not a material error. The court reasoned that while the sentencing judge did not explicitly state that the applicant would serve part of his sentence in an adult facility, the overall context of the sentencing remarks demonstrated that the judge had considered the consequences of the sentence, including its impact on the applicant as a youth offender. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate, taking into account the severity of the offence and the need for punishment and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused.

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 VL [2018] QCA 339
PARTIES:	R v VL (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 254 of 2018 DC No 19 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 12 September 2018 (Coker DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	7 December 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Mullins J
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was a youth offender – where the applicant was sentenced to two years detention to serve 50 per cent of that period of detention – where the applicant and complainant were in a relationship – where the complainant believed that she was pregnant and the applicant urged her to get an abortion – where the applicant stabbed the complainant four times while she was sleeping – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending and 17 years and nine months old at the time of sentence – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge failed to take into account that the applicant would serve part of his sentence in an adult correctional facility – whether the learned sentencing judge ought to have expressly taken into account that the applicant would be removed to an adult facility while serving his sentence Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 276B, s 276D, s 276F R v BBN[2008] QCA 84, cited R v CAC[2006] QCA 191, cited R v S[1999] QCA 499, cited
COUNSEL:	C Reid for the applicant D Kovac for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent