R v Slattery [2001] QCA 108

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-03-21|Before: Act J, Murdo P, Moynihan J, Dutney J

The applicant is perhaps fortunate that his co-offenders were juveniles. Were they adults, it would be more difficult for him to establish that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Despite the very significantly different approach of the sentencing regimes for juveniles and adults, on the unusual circumstances of this case, some consideration should have been given by the learned sentencing Judge to the sentence imposed upon the juvenile co-offenders.

Taking all the relevant factors set out by Justice Dutney in his reasons, it seems unjust that the applicant for his lesser role is here sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment while his co-offenders who played a more significant role were dealt with so much more leniently.

The applicant at 21 is still a young man. His offending behaviour suggests he has a problem with substance abuse. It is particularly concerning that he committed a minor drug offence whilst on bail for this offence. He has not previously had the benefit of a probation order. It seems likely that such an order would benefit both him and the community.

I am conscious of the seriousness of the offence, but after weighing up all the competing interests in the case, I am persuaded that the sentence imposed at first instance was manifestly excessive and that the sentence proposed by Justice Dutney is appropriate. I understand the applicant has consented to such an order which has been explained to him by his lawyers and I agree with the order proposed by Justice Dutney.

MOYNIHAN J: In my view, it has not been demonstrated that the sentence imposed was outside the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion. The trial Judge in particular properly took into account and gave considerable weight to the fact that the applicant was a willing participant in the enterprise which he knew was to involve the robbery at night of a service station where there was a single attendant.

His Honour placed great stress on the need to deter people from engaging in activities of this kind directed against what is commonly called "a soft target."

Bennett, which has been referred to, to my mind is an obverse situation to this and is of no application to the present circumstances. I have grave reservations about the notion that people ought to be advantaged in sentencing because their co-offenders are sentenced under the different juvenile regime, but it is unnecessary to decide that consideration here.

As I say, the trial Judge was properly entitled to take into account the circumstances to which I have earlier referred, and to give weight to the need for deterrence notwithstanding the way in which juveniles may have been dealt with, and I would refuse leave.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is as proposed by Justice Dutney.

MR RAFTER: Your Honour, it's necessary for the order to stipulate the place at which he must report and the appropriate place is Chermside.

THE PRESIDENT: So it's on the terms and conditions under Section 103 of the Penalties and Sentences Act and he is to report to Chermside.

MR RAFTER: My instructing solicitor has explained to him all of the requirements and has obtained his consent to a probation order.

Juvenile Justice Act 1992

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)