RJB v Police - [2000] SASC 209

RJB v POLICE
[2000] SASC 209

Youth Court Appeal: Criminal

1................ DEBELLE J. (ex tempore) This is an appeal from a magistrate sitting in the Youth Court at Berri.

The appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to a number of offences on four separate complaints. The first complaint charged the appellant with illegal use of a motor vehicle, wilful damage to that motor vehicle and a failure to comply with a bail agreement. He was convicted and sentenced to four months detention.
On the second complaint he was charged with three offences of breaking into and larceny from a building, and two counts of criminal damage. These offences were committed before the offences the subject of the first complaint. The appellant was convicted without further penalty. On the third complaint he was charged with three offences of failure to comply with a bail agreement. He was convicted without further penalty. On the fourth complaint he was charged with the offence of non-aggravated criminal trespass. The offence related to breaking and entering into a football club and stealing goods from that building. He was convicted without further penalty.
The offending was serious. The first of the offences to occur were the breaking and entering into buildings, and criminal damage to those buildings. On the weekend of 15 to 18 October 1999 the appellant, with three other lads, broke into the Waikerie High School and stole goods with a total value of about $1400. Those goods were taken from the arts studio at that school. Whilst in the arts studio, they cut the neck strings on 28 aprons hanging on the wall. Damage was also done to a desk. Later in the weekend the same four lads broke into the Waikerie Primary School. They took goods to the value of some $3460. They also sprayed graffiti on walls and other parts of the school.
The appellant voluntarily attended at the Waikerie Police Station on 19 October 1999 and freely admitted being involved in the above offences. He denied damaging property, but admitted writing graffiti on the walls of the primary school. It appears that he did not benefit from any of the stolen goods. After being interviewed by the police, the appellant was arrested, charged and released on bail. Relevant conditions of the bail agreement were to the following effect:
1...... That he would not leave the State of South Australia for any reason without lawful permission.
2...... That he was to reside at 5 Smith Drive, Waikerie.
3.That he will not make contact with Jack Daniel Hawkins, Matthew Ashmore and Zacharia Fuller.
4...... That he was not to be away from his place of residence between the hours of 6 pm and 7 am unless in the company of a parent or guardian.

The persons Hawkins, Ashmore and Fuller were the appellant’s co-offenders in breaking and entering the two schools. The appellant came before the Youth Court on 26 November 1999. The matters were adjourned and the…

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 RJB v Police

Details

AGLC: RJB v Police [2000] SASC 209
Case: [2000] SASC 209
Decision Date: 19 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RJB was convicted in the Youth Court of several serious offences, including illegal use of a motor vehicle, wilful damage, breaking and entering, and larceny. The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the magistrate, arguing that the detention period should have been suspended. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central legal issue was whether the magistrate erred in imposing a four-month detention sentence without considering suspension, particularly given the appellant's youth and potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the magistrate had not adequately considered the objectives of the Young Offenders Act 1993, which mandates that detention and imprisonment be options of last resort. The court also noted that the penalty of four months detention was lenient and did not reflect the gravity of the offences. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. The court re-sentenced the appellant to a 12-week detention period, suspended upon the appellant entering into a good behaviour bond for two years, performing 120 hours of community service, and being disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

Orders