M, Ma v Police

[2013] SASCFC 140

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
6. › Young offender
7. › Aggravated robbery
8. › Armed robbery with knives
9. › Breach of existing obligation
10. › Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), s 3, s 23(4)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Young offenders
4. › Sentencing principles
5. › Object and policies of Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA)
6. › Whether sentencing judge required to expressly refer to s 3 provisions
7. › Whether failure to expressly address provisions constitutes error
8. › Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), s 3
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Young offenders
4. › Detention
5. › Power to backdate sentence of detention
6. › Whether Youth Court empowered to backdate
7. › Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), ss 3A, 30(2)
8. › Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Young offenders
4. › Personal deterrence
5. › Whether general deterrence applicable to young offenders sentenced as youths
6. › Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), s 3(2a)(a)

Quick Take

The Youth Court has power to backdate a sentence of detention by virtue of ss 3A and 30(2) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), overcoming the difficulty identified in Edwards v South Australia Police (1995) 180 LSJS 215. While it is preferable for Youth Court judges to expressly address the object and policies in s 3 of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), failure to do so is not necessarily an error if the appropriateness of the sentence demonstrates by necessary inference that the correct principles were applied.