R v WS - [2007] QCA 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WS [2007] QCA 207

PARTIES:

R
v
WS
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 51 of 2007
SC No 59 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of his father – where the applicant was 16 years and 6 months old at the time of the murder – where the applicant was sentenced under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) Pt 6, Div 11 – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 6, Div 11

COUNSEL:

G P Long SC for the applicant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Jerrard JA.

JERRARD JA: On 23 October 2006 the applicant WS pleaded guilty to the murder of his father, committed on or about 3 May 2006 at Eimeo in Queensland. He was 16 years and six months old when he committed the murder, and 16 years and 11 months old when he pleaded guilty. On 12 February 2007, when he was 17 years and three months, he was sentenced to 12 years detention under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (“the Act”), particularly those in Part 6, Division 11, which required that in those circumstances he be treated as a child when sentenced. He has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence, and his counsel argues that the learned judge ought to have made an order under s 227(2) of the Act, ordering that the applicant be released from detention after serving 50 per cent of that 12 year period of detention.

The applicant was sentenced to 12 years detention under s 176(3) of the Act. It relevantly provides that for a serious offence that is a life offence (and murder is a life offence):
“...the court may order that the child be detained for –
(a)        a period not more than 10 years; or
(b)        a period up to and including the maximum of life – if
(i)          the offence involves the commission of violence against a person; and
(ii)        the court considers the offence to be a particularly heinous offence having regard to all the circumstances.”
The learned sentencing judge was satisfied that the murder was a particularly heinous offence, having regard…

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 WS

Details

AGLC: R v WS [2007] QCA 207
Case: [2007] QCA 207
Decision Date: 22 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the appellant, WS, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his father. WS was 16 years and 6 months old at the time of the offence. He was sentenced under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) Part 6, Division 11. WS appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether it should be reduced.

In assessing the appeal, the court examined the principles guiding the sentencing of juvenile offenders, particularly focusing on the necessity to balance the need for punishment with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the age of the offender, and the sentencing principles applicable under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court also evaluated the submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the excessiveness of the sentence. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The reasoning centred on the severity of the crime, the age of the offender, and the considerations applied by the sentencing judge in line with statutory provisions. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed, thereby upholding the decision of the lower court. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines when sentencing juvenile offenders and maintaining the balance between punitive and rehabilitative elements in the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application Dismissed

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 WS [2007] QCA 207
PARTIES:	R v WS (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 51 of 2007 SC No 59 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 May 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application Dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of his father – where the applicant was 16 years and 6 months old at the time of the murder – where the applicant was sentenced under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) Pt 6, Div 11 – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 6, Div 11
COUNSEL:	G P Long SC for the applicant M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent