The Queen v RBF - [2022] QCA 33

[2022] QCA 33

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
MULLINS JA
DAVIS J

DC No 293 of 2021
DC No 339 of 2021
DC No 384 of 2021

THE QUEEN

RBF Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2022

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA: Yes. The court is in a position to give its judgment. I will ask Davis J to give his reasons first.

DAVIS J: The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts on two indictments and two summary charges. Those offences were one count of going armed so as to cause fear, one of attempted armed robbery in company, one of armed robbery in company, one of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and a failure to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking.

The first in time to occur was the count of going armed so as to cause fear. That occurred on 10 April 2021. The applicant was in the Queen Street Mall with other youths. A fight broke out not involving him. He was in possession of a kitchen knife which he produced and pointed at one of the males who had been involved in the fight. The applicant took no part in the fight and walked away.

The attempted armed robbery in company occurred on 15 April 2021. The applicant, another child and a youth aged 19 were in Albert Street in the city. They approached a man who was sitting on a bench. The applicant produced the kitchen knife which had been the subject of the charge of going armed so as to cause fear, and he demanded that the man give him his car keys. There was a confrontation but no violence, and the complainant did not deliver the keys.

The next offence was the first of the summary offences, namely, unlawful use of a motor vehicle. On 30 May 2021 the applicant and two others were detected in a stolen car. The applicant was arrested and bailed to appear on 2 June 2021 in the Southport Magistrates Court. He failed to do so, and that constitutes the second summary charge.

The final offence was committed on 11 June 2021 and is the charge of armed robbery in company. The applicant with two others approached a man in King George Square. The applicant threatened him with a screwdriver and pushed it into the complainant’s chest. That was done in a threatening way rather than in an attempt to stab the complainant. Under threat, the complainant removed the contents of his wallet and bag and handed the wallet, the bag and his scarf to the applicant and his co-offenders.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court to all five offences. He was sentenced as follows.

Going armed so as to cause fear on 10 April 2021: three months detention.
Attempted armed robbery on 15 April 2021: 12 months detention.
Unlawful use of a motor vehicle on 30 May 2021: six months detention.
Failure to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking on 2 June 2021: a…

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 RBF

Details

AGLC: The Queen v RBF [2022] QCA 33
Case: [2022] QCA 33
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v RBF, the applicant appealed against the decision of the sentencing judge to record a conviction for the offence of armed robbery in company. The applicant pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including going armed to cause fear, attempted armed robbery in company, armed robbery in company, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and failure to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. The applicant was sentenced to various periods of detention for these offences, and a conviction was recorded only for the offence of armed robbery in company. The applicant challenged the decision to record a conviction for this particular offence.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising their discretion to record a conviction for the offence of armed robbery in company. The court needed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine if the decision to record a conviction was appropriate in light of the applicant's age, the nature of the offence, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge's decision to record a conviction for the offence of armed robbery in company miscarried the discretion, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive. The judges found that there was evidence of rehabilitation occurring since the applicant's previous convictions in 2019, and the expert evidence indicated that the applicant's grief in losing a friend in violent circumstances was a catalyst for the offending. Additionally, the applicant had made rehabilitative efforts while in detention. Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the decision to record a conviction for the offence of armed robbery in company, and ordered that no conviction be recorded for that offence.

The final order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal was allowed, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made below were varied by ordering that no conviction be recorded for the offence of armed robbery in company.

Orders