B J H v The Crown

[2012] QChC 22

[2012] QChC 22

THE CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE SHANAHAN

B J H	Applicant
v.
THE CROWN	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/06/2012

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application for an extension of time to file a sentence review and the sentence review itself.  On the 26th of March 2012, the applicant child was dealt with in the Hervey Bay Childrens Court in relation to two summary offences of obstructing police and failing to take reasonable care in respect of a syringe.  More concerningly, he was dealt with in relation to a breach of a conditional release order.  A presentence report had been obtained by the sentencing Magistrate and the sentencing Magistrate activated the entire outstanding eight months of the conditional release order.  He sentenced him to periods of one month's detention to be served concurrently in relation to the summary matters.  No convictions were recorded.

The sentence review was filed some three days out of time.  It's apparent the child didn't contact Legal Aid for some time.  I am of the view that that application to extend time should be allowed.  There's been no prejudice occasioned to the Crown as a result of that short delay.

My concern in this matter is that the child has a long and concerning history.  It dates back to the 14th of May 2010.  It has culminated in various periods of detention which have been ordered to be served by way of a conditional release order and, on my reading of his history, that has occurred on three separate occasions in relation to a large number of offences.  The last of those was on the 17th of February 2012 in relation to offences of wilful damage, breaking and entering premises and involving a number of such offences.  He was sentenced to eight months' detention but was ordered to be released on a conditional release order.  There was a particular condition of that order that he reside away from Hervey Bay.  He has an unfortunate and troubled upbringing.  He breached that order by moving back to Hervey Bay without advising the department and he also failed to attend appointments on a number of occasions.  It was in fact breach action brought by the department which saw him before the Court on the 27th of April.

It seems to me, considering his history and the chances that he had been given, that it was open to the learned sentencing Magistrate to order the activation of the entire eight months of the conditional release order, but there was material placed before the Magistrate which indicated that the child had been using his time in detention well.  He'd completed various courses, he made a submission himself to the Magistrate, asking for mercy, however his history outweighed that, but it seems to me, in the light of the attempts and courses and counselling that he has been undertaking whilst in detention, that it was open to the Magistrate to order his release after serving 50 per cent of the activated conditional release order.  I note in that regard that that is the submission by the respondent Crown here and I accept that.  It seems to me, in all the circumstances, it was open to order the child's release after serving half of the sentence and it seems to me that supervision in the community for that period of time is also to the benefit of the community in having the child returned to the community with some support.  I intend to allow the sentence review to that extent.

My orders are: I allow the extension of time in relation to the filing of the application for sentence review to the 28th of May 2012.  I will allow the sentence review to the extent of ordering that the child be released after serving 50 per cent of the activated unexpired conditional release order.  All other aspects of the sentence are to remain.

Is that sufficient?

MS DIAS:  Yes, your Honour, thank you.

MS SMITH:  Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Thank you both.

-----