R v F
[2001] QCA 2
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v F[2001] QCA 2
- Add to List
R v F[2001] QCA 2
R v F[2001] QCA 2
COURT OF APPEAL
McPHERSON JA
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
CA No 340 of 2000
THE QUEEN
v.
FApplicant
BRISBANE
DATE 29/01/2001
JUDGMENT
McPHERSON JA: The applicant was sentenced on her own pleas in the District Court in Southport of a series of offences involving unlawful use of a motor vehicle or vehicles, stealing, obstructing police, assaulting them, insulting language, unlicensed driving and so on. By far the most serious offence in the group was robbery in company with personal violence.
The circumstances are, in summary, as follows. The applicant and her friend approached the complainant and her friend at a set of traffic lights on the Gold Coast. The complainant was accused of calling the applicant and her friend "sluts". A demand for an apology was made. There was an angry exchange of words. The applicant sought identification from the complainant. After it was produced, the complainant swore at the applicant who then punched the complainant in the face.
The complainant's wallet containing $20 in cash was taken. There was later on an interview by the police and admissions were made by the applicant. I think it's not necessary to go into the details of the other offences but the principal offence to which I have referred is the evident justification for the sentence of 15 months detention that was imposed by the sentencing Judge.
At the time in question, the applicant was 14 when the offence was committed and 15 at the date of sentence. It is regrettable to see one so young having to be confined but the Court has, it seems to me, adopted a general practice of looking seriously at the option of detention in the case of a child who commits a robbery which involves personal violence as this one did.
The sentence in this particular case is within the range of other decisions of this Court in which that kind of question has been considered. The other cases were, in my view, somewhat more serious; but the impression remains that there is nothing that can be made of the fact that the sentence in this case is, on a comparative basis perhaps, a little higher than the others to which I refer.
In the circumstances, and there not being any basis for saying that the discretion was wrongly exercised, I do not think this application can succeed and I would dismiss it.
I should mention another matter which has been the subject of discussion in Court and has now, it seems, been resolved. The applicant had been in custody before being convicted and sentenced. She was given the benefit of a declaration with respect to her pre-sentence detention. The time in question allowed under that declaration appears to be incorrect and the applicant, with the assent of Mr Weston for the Crown, wishes to substitute a period 185 days for that which is specified.
...
McPHERSON JA: So the application appeal will be allowed to the extent of varying the declaration by substituting the figure 185 for 135.
...
McPHERSON JA: The figure finally substituted for that that was declared to be pre-sentence custody by the learned Judge will now be 175.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: And the appeal is allowed to that extent only.