B (a child) -v- HEPPLE [2013] WASC 303

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 303
Case No:	SJA:1063/2013	Heard:	31 JULY 2013
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	15/08/13
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence varied with CRO
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	B (a child) CHRISTOPHER JOHN HEPPLE
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Juvenile justice Principles to be applied Appellant detained in harsh conditions Whether special circumstances Whether taken into account
Legislation:	Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 189
Case References:	R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 The State of Western Australia v JAB [2013] WACC 3

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : B (a child) -v- HEPPLE [2013] WASC 303 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 31 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 15 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1063 of 2013 BETWEEN : B (a child)

Appellant

AND

CHRISTOPHER JOHN HEPPLE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G D LAWRENCE

File No : CCGN 82 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Juvenile justice - Principles to be applied - Appellant detained in harsh conditions - Whether special circumstances - Whether taken into account

Legislation:

Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 189

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence varied with CRO

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D D Brunello

Respondent : Mr J A Scholz

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
The State of Western Australia v JAB [2013] WACC 3

McKECHNIE J

What this appeal is about

1 B is a young man nearly 17, poorly educated, from a dystopian environment.

2 On 9 February 2013 he burgled a house with a friend. This was not his first burglary. He has a long record for one so young. He is not just a repeat offender, but a second time repeat offender. He had been released on supervision only two months before the burglary.

3 The mandatory sentence in these circumstances is one of imprisonment or detention for 12 months although a conditional release order may be made.

4 In the way in which the matter was argued in the primary court, this sentence could only be avoided if the magistrate was persuaded that special circumstances existed so that a previous conviction could be disregarded. Then B would not be a repeat offender.

5 On 14 May 2013, counsel tried hard to persuade the magistrate that there were special circumstances. Following a riot, Banksia Detention Centre became uninhabitable. Inmates were housed in harsh conditions in Hakea Prison. The principles of juvenile justice could not be applied.

6 The magistrate was unmoved and imposed 12 months' detention from 26 April 2013. He declined to make another intensive youth supervision order. This appeal is from that decision and has been heard as quickly as possible.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading B (a child) v Hepple

Details

AGLC: B (a child) -v- HEPPLE [2013] WASC 303
Case: [2013] WASC 303
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a young individual, referred to as B, who was challenging the sentence imposed on them by the Children's Court. The crux of the dispute centred around the conditions of B's detention and whether the court had adequately considered the harshness of these conditions as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Children's Court had applied the correct principles in sentencing a juvenile and if it had appropriately taken into account the harsh conditions of B's detention. The appeal hinged on whether these conditions constituted special circumstances that warranted a different approach to sentencing. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentence was appropriate given the unique circumstances of B's case.

The court examined the principles outlined in the relevant legislation, which required the Children's Court to consider the welfare of the child and the protection of the community. It was noted that the Children's Court had considered the harsh conditions of B's detention but did not adequately weigh this as a mitigating factor in the sentencing decision. The court found that the harsh conditions did constitute special circumstances that should have been more heavily considered. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied with the imposition of a CRO.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence varied with CRO

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.