The Queen v H and L - [2007] QSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: The Queen v H and L [2007] QSC 178
PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
H and L (a minor)
(defendants)
FILE NO/S: Indictment numbers 478/07 and 121/07
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Sentencing
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 20 July 2007
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 11 and 12th July 2007
JUDGE: Byrne J
ORDER: H sentenced to:

− 9 years imprisonment on count 1 of indictment
number 478/07, conviction recorded;
− 5 years imprisonment on count 2 of indictment
number 478/07, conviction recorded;
− these sentences to be served concurrently;
− 1 year imprisonment on count 1 of indictment number
121/07, conviction recorded;
− Pursuant to s. 156(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act
1992, it is directed that the imprisonment for armed
robbery (count 1 of indictment number 121/07) start
from the end of the period of imprisonment the
offender has been sentenced to serve in respect of the
other offences;
− Pursuant to s. 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act
1992, I declare the 62 days spent in pre-sentence
custody form the 18th February 2006 to the 10 April
2006 and from the 11 July 2007 until today to be
imprisonment already served under those three
sentences.
L is sentenced to:

− 4 years detention on count 1 of indictment number
478/07, conviction recorded;
− 2 years detention on count 2 of indictment number
478/07, conviction recorded;
− Those sentences are to be served concurrently;
− Pursuant to s. 227(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, it is ordered that she be released after serving 2 years of that detention.
− I declare the 11 days spent in pre-sentence custody
from 18 February 2006 to 20 February 2006 and from
12 July 2007 until today to be imprisonment already
served under those sentences.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT -
SENTENCE - PARITY - VICTIM IMPACT
STATEMENT - JUVENILE OFFENDER - matter for
parity considerations as there are different sentencing regimes
for adults and juveniles - how much weight should be given
to victim impact statements - whether mental illness reduces
the moral culpability of the offender
Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s 208, s 227(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 156(1), s 159A
R v M, CA 137 of 1996, 2 August 1996
R v Maddeford (2001) 120 A Crim R 497
R v McDougall; R v Collas (2006) 166 A Crim R 191
R v Neumann [2007] 1 Qd R 53
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
R v Perks [2000] Crim LR 606
R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331
R v Slattery [2001] QCA 108
R v Vardouniotis [2007] VSCA 62
COUNSEL: A Edwards for the crown
M C Chowdhury for the first defendant
A J Glynn SC for the second defendant
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers for the first defendant
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the second defendant

H has pleaded guilty to three…

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 The Queen v H and L

Details

AGLC: The Queen v H and L [2007] QSC 178
Case: [2007] QSC 178
Decision Date: 20 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v H and L was a case before the High Court of Australia, where the defendants, H and L, were convicted of various serious crimes, including murder. The case primarily dealt with the sentencing of juvenile offenders and the consideration of victim impact statements and the offenders' mental health in determining the appropriate punishment. The court had to address the issue of parity in sentencing between juvenile and adult offenders, the weight to be given to victim impact statements, and the extent to which mental illness affects moral culpability.

The legal issues at the heart of the case included the appropriate methodology for sentencing juvenile offenders and the balance to be struck between the seriousness of the crime and the offenders' personal circumstances. Specifically, the court examined how to achieve parity in sentencing while adhering to different legal frameworks for juveniles and adults. Additionally, it considered the role of victim impact statements in sentencing and the impact of the offenders' mental health on their moral culpability.

The High Court held that achieving parity in sentencing between juvenile and adult offenders requires careful consideration of the unique circumstances of each case. The court acknowledged that while victim impact statements can provide valuable insight into the harm caused by the crime, they should not be given disproportionate weight in sentencing juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the court recognised that mental illness could mitigate moral culpability, but this should be balanced against the gravity of the offence committed. In the end, the court determined that the sentencing of juvenile offenders should reflect a more rehabilitative approach compared to that of adults, considering their developmental stage and potential for reform.

The court ordered that H be sentenced according to the juvenile justice regime, with appropriate consideration given to parity, the impact of the crime on the victims, and H's mental health. The specific details of the sentence were to be determined by the lower court, guided by the principles set out by the High Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

H sentenced to:

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.