R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; ex parte A-G (Qld)

(2005) 158 A Crim R 488; [2005] QCA 467

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Recording of convictions
4. › Discretion under s 12 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
5. › Armed robbery by youthful offenders
6. › Whether sentencing judge erred in ordering no conviction be recorded
7. › Whether seriousness of offence required recording of conviction
8. › Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Recording of convictions
4. › Impact on employment prospects
5. › Whether specific employment opportunities must be identified
6. › Whether impact may be inferred from nature of offence
7. › Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(2)(c)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Appeal by Attorney-General
5. › Application to increase sentence
6. › Whether discretion to not record conviction miscarried
7. › Standard of appellate review of sentencing discretion

Quick Take

While persons who plead guilty to armed robbery should in all but the most exceptional case expect to have convictions recorded, the discretion under s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) remains broad and may be exercised in favour of youthful offenders of previous good character where the offence was amateurish, the victim suffered no lasting harm, and significant pre-sentence custody was served. Specific identification of employment opportunities that would be lost is not an essential requirement for the exercise of the discretion, though it should usually be provided. The Crown should make submissions on the question of recording convictions where the issue arises.