Legal Research
Cases
CDirector of Public Prosecutions v XY (a pseudonym)

CDirector of Public Prosecutions v XY (a pseudonym)

Case [2025] VSC 661 23 October 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0154

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions	Appellant
v
XY (a pseudonym)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Fox J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2025
DATE OF RULING:	23 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v XY (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 661

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Procedure — Appeal by Director against a sentence imposed by the President of the Children’s Court — Whether general deterrence applies to the sentencing of children for federal offences in the Children’s Court — Application by Director to reserve questions of law for determination by the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 430VA of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) — Whether questions should be reserved — Application refused — Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) ss 360, 361, 362, 430VA; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 68, 79(1); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(2)(ja), 19B(1)(b), 20C; Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi (2023) 72 VR 280; [2023] VSCA 245; LS v CDPP [2020] VSC 484; CNK v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 641; [2011] VSCA 228; Rizeq v Western Australia (2017) 262 CLR 1; [2017] HCA 23; Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119; [2002] HCA 47; Putland v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 174; [2004] HCA 8; Newman v A (a Child) (1992) 9 WAR 14; Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 161; [2003] HCA 49; Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 164 FLR 375; [2001] NSWCCA 332.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr Nick Robinson KC with Ms Ruth Champion	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For the Respondent	Mr Patrick Doyle SC with Ms Julia Kretzenbacher	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an appeal against sentence by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (‘Director’) from a sentence imposed by the President of the Children’s Court. On 3 August 2024, XY[1] was charged that between 31 July and 3 August 2024, he attempted to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).[2] XY was 17 years old.
[1]I have adopted the pseudonyms used by the Children’s Court.
[2]The dates were later amended to between ‘1 August 2024 and 3 August 2024’.

On 20 June 2025, XY was sentenced to an 18-month youth supervision order, without conviction, pursuant to s 360(1)(g) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) (‘CYFA’).

On 17 July 2025, the Director appealed the sentence pursuant to s 427 of the CYFA. While any appeal is conducted as a de novo rehearing,[3] the Notice of Appeal (‘Notice’) must nonetheless state the general grounds of appeal.[4] The grounds of appeal as stated are:

Ground 1: The sentencing judge…

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 CDirector of Public Prosecutions v XY (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: CDirector of Public Prosecutions v XY (a pseudonym) [2025] VSC 661
Case: [2025] VSC 661
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to appeal against a sentence imposed by the President of the Children's Court on a child, identified as XY, convicted of federal offences. The central issue before the court was whether the principle of general deterrence applies when sentencing children in the Children's Court, and if so, to what extent. This question arose from the Director's application to reserve questions of law for determination by the Court of Appeal under section 430VA of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).

The court examined the principles of sentencing as they apply to children, considering statutory provisions and case law, including LS v CDPP and CNK v The Queen. The court deliberated on the objectives of sentencing for children, as outlined in section 360 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), which emphasise rehabilitation and reintegration, rather than punishment and deterrence. The court also considered the broader context of general deterrence within criminal law, referencing Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi, Rizeq v Western Australia, and Solomons v District Court (NSW). Ultimately, the court determined that while general deterrence is a relevant consideration, it must be balanced with the specific objectives of juvenile justice and the unique circumstances of the child. The application to reserve questions of law was refused, as the court found that the existing legal framework sufficiently addressed the issue.

In its judgment, the court clarified the scope of general deterrence in the context of juvenile sentencing and confirmed that the Children's Court is the appropriate forum for determining the appropriate balance between deterrence, rehabilitation, and other sentencing considerations. The decision underscores the importance of tailoring sentencing to the individual circumstances of the child, in line with the principles of juvenile justice.

Orders