R v YTZ; Ex parte; R v YTZ

The Attorney-General appealed against the sentence imposed on YTZ, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter and other offences under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). The sentencing judge had found that the conditions in section 176(3)(b) of the Act were met, which increased the maximum detention period for each manslaughter offence from 10 years to life. YTZ was sentenced to 10 years' detention with an order for release after serving 60 per cent of the sentence. The Attorney-General contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court had to decide whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, as well as whether the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the manslaughter offences were "particularly heinous" under section 176(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. The court also had to consider the subjective circumstances of YTZ at the time of the offending, which YTZ argued precluded a finding that the offences were particularly heinous. The court had to balance the sentencing principles under the Youth Justice Act with the gravity of the offences and YTZ’s personal circumstances.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and had appropriately exercised judicial discretion. The court also found that the sentencing judge was correct in determining that the manslaughter offences were particularly heinous, taking into account the dangerous driving and the resulting deaths. The court rejected YTZ’s argument that his subjective circumstances precluded a finding of particular heinousness. The appeal was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The court made two orders. Firstly, in Criminal Appeal No 116 of 2022, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. Secondly, in Criminal Appeal No 132 of 2022, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.