The sentence handed to a teenager who killed a Queensland couple and their unborn baby in a "revolting and offensive, beyond-the-norm" hit-and-run incident was "unjust and unreasonable" and should be increased, a lawyer for the attorney-general has argued.
In January 2021, Katherine Leadbetter — who was 24 weeks' pregnant — and her partner Matthew Field, died after they were struck by an out-of-control car at an intersection in Alexandra Hills, east of Brisbane.
The 17-year-old driver was under the influence of cannabis and alcohol when he sped through a red light and collided with a tow truck, causing the stolen 4WD to roll into the couple.
Last year, the driver — who cannot be named and who is now 19 years old — pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter.
He was jailed for 10 years but was only ordered to serve 60 per cent of the sentence and is due to be released in 2027.
Queensland's attorney-general is challenging the penalty, on the grounds it was "manifestly inadequate".
The state's youth justice laws only allow children to be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in custody, unless the court determines the offence to be "particularly heinous", in which case a life sentence can be considered.
Director of Public Prosecutions Carl Heaton KC told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday the boy's term of imprisonment should be raised to 14 years, based on the sentencing judge characterising the offending in this way.
"The sentencing discretion has miscarried by some implied error, in that the [10-year] penalty imposed was unjust and unreasonable," he said.
"The outcome fails to reflect the serious nature of the offending."
When describing a previous Court of Appeal president's definition of "particularly heinous", Mr Heaton said that judge classified it as crimes that were "revolting and offensive beyond the norm" which should "suffer a punishment that is proportionate".
"The circumstances here, we say, very powerfully fit within that categorisation," he said.
Mr Heaton told the court there was a failure to properly address all the applicable sentencing principles in the Youth Justice Act, particularly the safety of the community which, he argued, was "not given sufficient weight".
"It is safe to say the community is rightly at a point where they expect the courts to impose a different sentencing approach to curb what is a common and regrettably all too frequent occurrence," he said.
Mr Heaton pointed to the teenager's lengthy criminal history of like offending, including 21 instances of unlawful use of a motor vehicle in the two years before he killed the couple.
"The court had tried on previous occasions to impose restraints, support, to turn the offending conduct around to no avail," he said.
"It's perhaps sad to say, but relevant, the cohort of this offender … is precisely the cohort of offenders that it is necessary the court deters by the imposition of strong sentencing responses."
Lawyers for teen argue for sentence reduction
Lawyers representing the teenager, not only argued against the increase, but also made their own appeal that the 10-year sentence should be shortened by one year.
Ruth O'Gorman KC told the court the serious nature and "very grave and tragic outcomes" had been considered by the sentencing judge, and public safety "isn't only to be achieved by the imposition of such a lengthy sentence".
"Community protection, whilst undoubtedly important in cases of this kind, ought not be given so much weight as compared to the other principles in the Youth Justice Act," she said.
Ms O'Gorman told the court the teenager will "inevitably be sent back out into the community", so his sentence should "do the best it can" to ensure he is somebody who is less of a danger to the community.
"Nine years [sentence] is more apt to achieve that," she said.
When Ms O'Gorman argued his offending should not automatically be labelled as "particularly heinous" just because the outcome was "particularly tragic", Court of Appeal President Justice Debra Mullins said it had inspired a "sense of outrage".
"I feel that, that is applicable in this particular case," Ms Mullins said.
"These were just a couple walking their dogs and members of the community should be able to expect that they can safely walk around the streets without losing their lives."
Family grateful for opportunity to appeal
Ms O'Gorman told the court the prejudicial background of the teenager, including suffering "severe neglect" and physical abuse from a young age, prevents the finding that it was "particularly heinous".
"He was someone who … was very badly mistreated," she said.
"Sight must not be lost on the matters that [the defendant] endured at no fault of his own," she said.
The decision on both appeals has been reserved.
Outside court, Matthew's father, Russell Field, became emotional, and said they "weren't happy" with the original sentence but were grateful there was a chance to appeal.
"All we can do is wait for justice to takes its course, we can't ask for anymore," he said.
Mr Field thanked "everybody who got us this far".
"I'd just like to thank everybody in the community and our supporters," he said.
