R v William (a pseudonym) - [2020] QCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAM (a pseudonym)
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 68 of 2020
SC No 113 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 3 March 2020 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 27 July 2020
Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison and Mullins JJA

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 27 July 2020

1.   Grant leave to appeal.

2.   Appeal is allowed.

3.   Sentence of imprisonment and order fixing date of eligibility for parole imposed and made 3 March 2020 be set aside.

4.   Appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years.

5.   Appellant be eligible for parole on 15 August 2020.

6.   Pre-sentence custody certificate is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant attempted to kill his mother – where the applicant was suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder – where the applicant’s mother had been supplying the applicant with cannabis and methylamphetamine from the ages of 12 and 14 respectively – where the applicant was a few days short of turning 18 at the time of the offending and the proceeding commenced by the presentation of the indictment was commenced more than a year after the applicant had turned 18 – where the learned sentencing judge sentenced him to be imprisoned for seven years and six months – where the learned sentencing judge regarded the offence as “heinous” within the meaning of s 176(3)(b) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), which had the effect of giving the court the power to order that the child be detained for life – where the applicant submitted that the learned sentencing judge erred in finding the offence to be “heinous” – where the applicant submits that the relevant circumstances included the fact that the applicant was a child at the time of the offending, he had no relevant prior convictions, his upbringing was “horrendous”, that his good character was overborne by the vices inflicted upon him by the victim, and that there is the prospect that he will be cured of his diagnosed mental disorder – whether the offence was a particularly heinous offence having regard to all the circumstances – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant attempted to kill his mother – where the applicant was suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder – where the applicant’s mother had been supplying the applicant with cannabis and methylamphetamine from the ages of 12 and 14 respectively – where the applicant was a few days short of turning 18 at the time of the offending and the proceeding commenced by…

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 William (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174
Case: [2020] QCA 174
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v William (a pseudonym), the appellant appealed against his sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment, imposed by the learned sentencing judge. The appellant had attempted to kill his mother while suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder, which was caused by his mother supplying him with cannabis and methylamphetamine from the ages of 12 and 14 respectively. The appellant was a few days short of turning 18 at the time of the offending, and the proceeding was commenced more than a year after he had turned 18. The appellant submitted that the learned sentencing judge erred in finding the offence to be "heinous" within the meaning of s 176(3)(b) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the offence was a particularly heinous offence having regard to all the circumstances, and whether the sentencing discretion miscarried. The court also needed to decide whether the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence to be "heinous" within the meaning of s 176(3)(b) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), as the relevant circumstances included the fact that the appellant was a child at the time of the offending, he had no relevant prior convictions, his upbringing was "horrendous", that his good character was overborne by the vices inflicted upon him by the victim, and that there is the prospect that he will be cured of his diagnosed mental disorder. The court further held that the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was manifestly excessive, as it failed to take into account the relevant mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment and order fixing date of eligibility for parole imposed and made 3 March 2020 was set aside. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years, with eligibility for parole on 15 August 2020. The pre-sentence custody certificate was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 27 July 2020

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Appeal is allowed.

3. Sentence of imprisonment and order fixing date of eligibility for parole imposed and made 3 March 2020 be set aside.

4. Appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years.

5. Appellant be eligible for parole on 15 August 2020.

6. Pre-sentence custody certificate is confirmed.

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 William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAM (a pseudonym) (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 68 of 2020 SC No 113 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 3 March 2020 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 27 July 2020 Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison and Mullins JJA
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 27 July 2020 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Appeal is allowed. 3. Sentence of imprisonment and order fixing date of eligibility for parole imposed and made 3 March 2020 be set aside. 4. Appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. 5. Appellant be eligible for parole on 15 August 2020. 6. Pre-sentence custody certificate is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant attempted to kill his mother – where the applicant was suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder – where the applicant’s mother had been supplying the applicant with cannabis and methylamphetamine from the ages of 12 and 14 respectively – where the applicant was a few days short of turning 18 at the time of the offending and the proceeding commenced by the presentation of the indictment was commenced more than a year after the applicant had turned 18 – where the learned sentencing judge sentenced him to be imprisoned for seven years and six months – where the learned sentencing judge regarded the offence as “heinous” within the meaning of s 176(3)(b) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), which had the effect of giving the court the power to order that the child be detained for life – where the applicant submitted that the learned sentencing judge erred in finding the offence to be “heinous” – where the applicant submits that the relevant circumstances included the fact that the applicant was a child at the time of the offending, he had no relevant prior convictions, his upbringing was “horrendous”, that his good character was overborne by the vices inflicted upon him by the victim, and that there is the prospect that he will be cured of his diagnosed mental disorder – whether the offence was a particularly heinous offence having regard to all the circumstances – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant attempted to kill his mother – where the applicant was suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder – where the applicant’s mother had been supplying the applicant with cannabis and methylamphetamine from the ages of 12 and 14 respectively – where the applicant was a few days short of turning 18 at the time of the offending and the proceeding commenced by…