Director of Public Prosecutions v St

[2023] VSC 49

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0358

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
ST	Accused

---

JUDGE:	FOX J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 February 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 February 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v ST
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 49

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Guilty plea – 15-year-old offender – Offender brandished a small knife during a group attack on a 15-year-old victim resulting in a single fatal stab wound – Crown cannot exclude that the infliction of the stab wound may have been accidental – No prior history – Limited remorse – Aged 18 at time of sentence – Delay – Young offender – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Category A serious youth offence – Court must not make a youth justice centre order unless satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist – Exceptional circumstances established – Sentenced to two years’ youth detention – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 3(1), 32 & 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J McWilliams, with Mr E Dober	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Edney, with Ms S Stafford	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

1. ST, you have pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter.  The maximum sentence for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.[1]

   [1]The maximum penalty for manslaughter was increased to 25 years’ imprisonment from 1 July 2020.

Circumstances of the offence

1. At the time of your offending, you were aged 15 years and 10 months.  You were associated with two gangs operating in the western suburbs of Melbourne known as ‘BH’, or ‘Brotherhood’, and ‘97’.  At the relevant time, the two gangs were apparently in conflict with a third youth gang known as ‘VB’.  The younger members of that group were known as ‘VB Youngins’.

1. On Tuesday, 16 June 2020, at approximately 3:10pm, the victim, Solomone Taufeulungaki, was walking with some of his school friends towards a bus stop in Deer Park when they were confronted by a group of ten young males.  This group included you.  Members of your group asked Solomone and his friends if they were part of a gang known as ‘VB’ or ‘VB Youngins’, and whether they had been involved in a fight the previous day.  They said they had not been and began walking away.  Some members of your group then attacked Solomone and his friends, punching them and waving weapons.  Solomone and his friends managed to escape and fled the scene.

1. Your group briefly gave chase, but could not catch them and gave up.  You all then caught a bus to Brimbank Shopping Centre, where you spent some time at the shopping centre before moving to a nearby skate park.  While there, you discussed an incident where ‘BH’ or ‘97’ members had been assaulted.  Your group was angry about this and blamed Solomone and his friends.  One member of your group said he had been previously assaulted by Solomone.  After some time, you all walked back towards the shopping centre.

1. Meanwhile, Solomone and his friend had been collected by his friend’s mother.  They were being driven home when, as a result of a telephone call, it was conveyed to the occupants of the car that the friend’s younger brother was at the Brimbank Shopping Centre and being harassed by members of your group.  As a result, the car carrying Solomone and his friend drove to the Brimbank Shopping Centre.

1. Solomone exited the car and walked through the Deer Park Library carpark, unaware that your group was across the road.  One of your group saw him and yelled to the others, ‘Look, there’s Solo’.  Another group member yelled, ‘Get him’.  That call triggered your group of ten to run towards Solomone.  You were brandishing a knife.  Solomone turned and began running in the opposite direction, pursued by you and your group.

1. You were the second of your group to catch up to Solomone.  He was quickly knocked to the ground.  Your group attacked him as he lay curled on the ground, with his arms up trying to protect his head.  Solomone was punched, kicked and struck with weapons, including a baseball bat and an extended baton.  You hit and kicked him as he lay on the ground.  During this attack, you were deliberately brandishing a knife.  As a result, Solomone was stabbed once to the left-hand side of his chest.  This stab wound pierced Solomone’s heart and would prove fatal.  Solomone’s friends came to his aid and pushed some of your group away.  As the confrontation ended, you dropped your knife on the ground next to the wounded Solomone before walking away.  Solomone attempted to get to his feet and walk, but quickly collapsed.  His friends lifted his clothing and saw he was bleeding.

1. After the attack, you and others ran across the road to the skate park, where you regrouped with all ten members.

1. At 4:11pm, police attended and found the wounded Solomone lying on the ground in the carpark.  He was unresponsive with a stab wound to the left-hand side of his chest.  Police commenced CPR.  Ambulance paramedics arrived eight minutes later and continued with CPR.  Tragically, they were unable to revive Solomone, and he was declared deceased at 4:49pm.  He was 15 years old.  Police collected the knife you had left at the scene.  It was a small, black-handled, nine centimetre paring knife.  Solomone died from a single penetrating stab wound to the left-hand side of his chest, which was approximately 4.5 centimetres deep.

1. While police and paramedics were trying to save Solomone, you and others from your group left the skate park and walked along a nearby street.  At approximately 4:30pm you were arrested by police and later interviewed.  You made a no-comment record of interview.

1. On 22 October 2020, following further investigations including DNA testing of the knife, you were arrested and charged with murder.  Ultimately, the charge of murder was abandoned and you faced trial in this Court on 17 August 2022 on charges of manslaughter, violent disorder and affray.  On 22 August 2022, after a jury were empanelled but prior to opening addresses, you pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter.[2]  The prosecution do not assert that you deliberately or intentionally stabbed Solomone.  Rather, your act of brandishing the knife in the circumstances was both unlawful and dangerous, and by this act you caused the death of Solomone.  In this way, you are guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

   [2]Verdicts of not guilty were entered in respect of the lesser charges of violent disorder and affray.

Victim impact

1. Solomone’s mother’s victim impact statement was read to the Court.  Solomone was part of a large, close-knit and loving family.  She and her husband have devoted their lives to their children, and love them all dearly.  Solomone was a gentle boy who wanted to be a police officer and a rugby player when he grew up.  He was in Year 10 at the time of his death, and he spent his time between home, school and church.  He was happy, kind, helpful and cheerful; he loved his family, and they loved him.  His mother takes comfort from her faith, but the pain of losing her son is enormous.  She lost a loving son and a friend, and she misses him terribly.  Her husband and all her children miss Solomone; they talk about him often and will never forget him.

1. KG, Solomone’s best friend, misses having Solomone by his side every day.  They were like brothers, and he has lost his confidant and protector.  As a result of the incident, many of his close friends moved away from the school and the suburb because their families felt unsafe or scared.  In this way, he lost not just Solomone, but many of his friends.  His parents are constantly scared and worried about what might happen to him.  He has also experienced a growing sense of feeling unsafe in public since the incident, particularly if he is alone, and he has become paranoid and worried about what could happen.  He and Solomone used to talk about graduating and making it to the end of school, and now he is doing that alone.  He prays that the violence will stop so they can all feel safe again.

1. Mrs G, KG’s mother, wrote that her children have nightmares because of what you did.  For two years, she has dropped off and picked up KG from school, because she is so worried about what could happen to him.  She has lived in fear, and is worried that you will not learn from what you did.  She hopes you will change for the better and make good choices in the future.

1. Ms Bugg was an innocent passer-by who witnessed the attack on Solomone.  For months afterwards, she suffered sleeplessness and anxiety.  She and her young family made the decision to move out of the suburb because of this incident.  To this day, she fears being in certain places and environments, and tries to avoid crowded places where there are strangers.  She is scared something bad will happen and worries about her children being in and around shopping centres, or anywhere there are groups of teenagers.

1. It is clear from the victim impact statements that your crime has not only devastated Solomone’s friends and family, but has also caused fear and harm to the broader community in which he lived.

Disputed admissions

1. According to the prosecution, when you arrived at the skate park after the incident, you said to the others, ‘I poked him, bro’.  ‘Poked’ is slang for stabbed.  A day after the incident, you visited one of your group member’s home.  You admitted you had stabbed Solomone and said you did it for the gang and so you could join ‘BH’.  Approximately two weeks later, you told two other group members that it was an accident.  You said you had the knife, but it was not to kill him; you only wanted to scare him so he would leave you and your family alone.  You said you got pushed, the knife was in your hand and you fell forward and stabbed Solomone.

1. You dispute making any of these admissions.  The prosecution do not rely on any of the admissions as aggravating your offending, and in those circumstances, I do not need to be satisfied to the criminal standard that you made these statements.  The admissions form part of the narrative of events.  I note the last admission is favourable to you; it is consistent with the stabbing being accidental, and would arguably evidence some regret and remorse on your part, had you said it.  Overall, whether the admissions were or were not made has no bearing on the sentence I will impose.

Personal history

1. You were born on 11 August 2004, and are now 18 and a half years old.

1. Your parents were born in Myanmar and are of Hakha Chin ethnicity and Christian faith.  Both your parents were teachers.  They migrated to Malaysia in the late 1990s due to the persecution of Chin people in Myanmar, and you were born in Kuala Lumpur.  Your parents registered as refugees with the UNHCR and in 2007 they arrived in Australia on humanitarian visas, together with you and your younger brother.  Your younger sister was born two years later.

1. Your family settled in Sunshine.  You acquired English quickly and attended the local primary school.  You were a quiet, well-behaved boy who enjoyed sport.  You made a number of friends, including other children you met at the Chin Baptist Church, where your family attended and your parents were preachers.  Your home life was stable and your parents were strict but kind.  They both worked full-time in factories.  Christian faith was a part of your everyday family life, and you attended Sunday school.

1. In 2017, aged 12, you commenced High School at Copperfield College in St Albans.  Initially, this went well.  You made friends easily, played in the school soccer team and progressed academically.  The first sign of trouble emerged towards the end of Year 8, when you were 14 years old.  A few of your friends would occasionally consume alcohol in a park, and every few weeks you would join them and get drunk.

1. In 2019, during Year 9, you started to spend more time with your friends who were truanting and drinking alcohol.  By mid-2019, you were missing about one day of school per week.  In the second-half of 2019, you commenced using cannabis with your friends about once a month, and drinking alcohol to excess about once a fortnight.  It seems you successfully hid this behaviour from your parents and teachers.  You continued to behave well at school, completed Year 9 and attended church with your family once or twice per week.

1. At the beginning of 2020, aged 15, you commenced Year 10.  You continued to miss school, and your teachers grew concerned and spoke with your parents.  However, you ignored both your teachers and parents, and continued to skip school to be with your friends.  Early in 2020, the first COVID-19 lockdown commenced and your classes were taught remotely.  This disrupted your schooling and you found it very difficult to maintain any motivation.  After the first lockdown ended in May 2020, you returned to school for about three weeks prior to this incident.  However, your truancy escalated, and two or three days a week you would not attend school and instead spend the day with your friends.  You drank alcohol more frequently, and were drunk a few times each week.  You also smoked cannabis.  About once or twice a week, you would not return home, instead staying at a friend’s place.  It was at this point in your life that you committed this offence.

Subsequent events

1. On 17 June 2020, the day after this incident, you were charged with violent disorder and affray and released on bail.  Four months later, you were arrested and charged with murder, and remanded into custody.  At this point, you had no prior criminal history.  You spent two months in custody before being granted bail by this Court on 18 December 2020.  Initially, things went well.  You lived with your parents and engaged with Youth Justice in accordance with your bail conditions.  You returned to school and transferred from VCE to VCAL.  A Youth Justice intensive bail progress report dated 9 March 2021 stated that you demonstrated an excellent level of compliance and attendance with services, and your response to being placed on bail was described as ‘positive’.

1. However, by May 2021, your school attendance had become erratic. You were breaching your bail curfew and you were again drinking alcohol.  In early June, together with others, you committed a burglary on a milk bar at night.  You were remanded back into custody, and your bail was revoked in this matter on 29 June 2021.  In December 2021, you were sentenced in the Children’s Court for the burglary and for an affray that occurred while you were in Youth Justice detention.  You received a six-month without-conviction good behaviour bond.

1. Your parents have remained very supportive of you.  In an effort to remove you from negative peer influences, they arranged to relocate to Queensland.  On 22 December 2021, you were again granted bail by this Court with a condition that you reside with your family in Queensland.  You have remained in Queensland ever since, other than returning for court appearances and matters related to your legal proceedings.  You enrolled in Year 11 and successfully completed one term.  You then left school, as you decided you would rather work.  Since then, you have worked casually in warehouses, and hope to obtain an electrician’s apprenticeship in the future.

Psychological and Youth Justice assessments

1. Mr Jackson, neuropsychologist, assessed you as having a full scale IQ of 92, placing you in the average range.  You told Mr Jackson that you had never been a member of, or associated with, a gang.  In relation to the stabbing, you told Mr Jackson you were in the ‘wrong place at the wrong time’, and otherwise claimed to have little recall of the incident.  According to Mr Jackson, from a purely cognitive and not psychological perspective, at the time of the offence there was nothing that rendered you more vulnerable to the influence of other people.  Again from a cognitive perspective, your prospects of rehabilitation are good, as you have the capacity to learn new ways of behaving and functioning.  There are a number of protective factors that reduce your risk of reoffending, including your family support, stable accommodation and employment.  You did not report any negative consequences due to being in custody, and you denied experiencing any anxiety or stress while there.

1. A pre-sentence report dated 21 January 2023 was prepared by Youth Justice.  You engaged well during the assessment interview.  You told Youth Justice that the underlying cause of the incident was a pre-existing conflict between two groups, ‘VB’ and ‘BH’.  At the time of the offending, you had been spending time with friends who were associated with ‘BH’.  You recall being told about a fight the day before.  You were not involved in that fight, but believed what you were told and remember feeling angry as a result.  You said you cannot recall how you came into possession of the knife, and maintained you cannot remember the details of the incident due to the time that has passed since it happened.  You stated that you feel bad for the victim’s family and wish it had never happened, but you were unable to elaborate further on the impact of your crime on the community.  When challenged about your loyalty to the peer group that led you into this offending, you advised that you still value these relationships and would maintain them in the future.

1. Youth Justice considered you had insight into the impact of this offence on yourself and your family.  However, there is a need for you to develop victim empathy and to challenge your perceptions on healthy relationships.  You acknowledged that you need to engage in treatment and develop insight, and you are motivated to engage with education and intervention opportunities available to you if sentenced to Youth Justice detention.  Youth Justice stated that you consistently attended education programs when previously in detention, and engaged well.  You advised Youth Justice that should you be sentenced to detention in Victoria, your family would remain in Queensland while you serve your sentence.

1. Youth Justice liaised with the Queensland Police and confirmed that you have had no police contact or further offending since being granted bail in December 2021. You reported that you no longer use drugs, and occasionally drink alcohol. Applying the statutory criteria in s 31 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’), Youth Justice assessed you as having ‘reasonable prospects’ of rehabilitation.[3]  They also hold some concern that if you are sent to adult prison, you may be subjected to undesirable influences that may disrupt your rehabilitation, given your age and lack of criminal history.

   [3]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 32(1)(a).

Other matters

1. You have pleaded guilty to this offence and that entitles you to a meaningful sentencing discount.  While your plea of guilty was entered at a late stage of the proceedings, it reflected the second or ‘lesser’ basis on which the Crown case was formulated.  You had not previously offered to plead guilty on this basis, and it is unknown whether such an offer, if made earlier, would have been accepted.  I find that despite its lateness, your plea does have substantial utilitarian or practical value.  Solomone’s family and friends were spared the stress and trauma of a criminal trial.  Witnesses, many of whom were children and friends of Solomone, were spared the ordeal of giving evidence at trial and being questioned about matters that would likely have caused them further distress.  The Court was also saved the time and expense of running a criminal trial.  Additionally, given there remains a listing backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a guilty plea continues to attract an additional utilitarian benefit which must be adequately reflected in sentencing.[4]

   [4]Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344, [35]; reaffirmed in Papagelou v The Queen [2022] VSCA 53, [28].

1. I accept that you experienced custody at a point when conditions were more difficult and isolating, due to the pandemic and resulting restrictions.  This is particularly onerous for a young offender who has never been to gaol before.  When first remanded, you arrived into Parkville Youth Justice Centre, where you underwent a two-week quarantine period and were locked down for 23 hours a day.  Your parents were unable to visit for the two months you were there, although positively, you were able to engage with education and counselling.  When you were again remanded in June 2021, you underwent the same quarantine lockdown period, and later moved to Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre.  Your parents were also unable to visit you there, and there were fewer courses and activities available.  I accept your time on remand was more onerous due to the COVID-19 restrictions, and this mitigates the sentence I would otherwise impose.

1. Your plea of guilty provides some limited evidence of remorse, but overall there is little evidence of genuine remorse in this case.  You regret what you did, but it seems you are better at identifying the impact of what you did on yourself and your family, rather than the impact on Solomone’s family and the community more broadly.  This may in part be explained by your age and immaturity, and your counsel submitted that your remorse is developing.

1. You were a child at the time of your offending, and you are now a young offender[5] and only 18 years old.  Your youth is a very important sentencing consideration.  In particular, given your age, your rehabilitation is a more important aim than general deterrence.  General deterrence is not irrelevant, but punishment that focuses on rehabilitation is to be preferred in your case, as it will benefit both you and the community.  The courts have long recognised that there is great public benefit in rehabilitating a young offender, and maximising the prospect that they will go on to live a peaceful, productive and law-abiding life.[6]  Further, the law recognises that children may lack the foresight, insight, judgement and self-control that comes with adulthood, particularly where the crime is committed spontaneously.  Young people are prone to ill-considered or rash decisions, and may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their acts.[7]  That said, the weight to be attached to youth correspondingly reduces as the level of seriousness of the criminality increases.[8]

   [5]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 3(1).

   [6]R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, 235-236.

   [7]R v McGaffin (2010) 206 A Crim R 188, 210 [69].

   [8]Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43, 57, [44].

1. This incident occurred over two and a half years ago, although you were not charged with murder until 22 October 2020, meaning there was a delay of approximately 22 months between charge and trial.  After the matter resolved, there was a further delay of five and a half months until your plea was listed before me and heard on Monday.  I accept that while overall this is not a lengthy or unusual delay, it represents a very substantial period of time, given your young age.  As a matter of fairness, the sentence should reflect that you have had this matter hanging over your head for approximately two and a half years, including the prospect of further youth detention or adult gaol.[9]

   [9]Sergi v DPP (Cth) & Anor [2015] VSCA 181, [44]-[45].

1. It is relevant to look at what has occurred in your life since you were first charged.  Positively, at least since December 2021, you have used the time to demonstrate your ability to reform and change.  I accept your rehabilitation is progressing well, in no small part because your parents relocated your entire family to Queensland.  This was done for your benefit, and you are very fortunate to have your parents’ ongoing love, supervision and support.  As much as possible, the sentence I impose should be tailored to ensure your rehabilitation continues and is not disrupted or jeopardised.[10]  As noted by Youth Justice, you do need to develop further insight into the real impact of your offending on the victims and the community, and it is somewhat concerning that you continue to value the peer relationships which led you into this offending.  Specific deterrence – that is, the need for any sentence to deter you personally from further offending – has some work to do here.  Overall, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as very good.

   [10]Sergi v DPP (Cth) & Anor [2015] VSCA 181, [43].

Nature and circumstances of the offending

1. Your counsel submitted that you were one of the younger people involved, and your moral culpability and the objective seriousness of your offending should both be assessed as low.  You were brandishing the knife, there was only one stab wound and the prosecution cannot exclude that you stabbed Solomone by accident.  Given this, your counsel submitted you should receive a sentence that does not see you returned to any type of custody.

1. The prosecution submitted your offending had a number of aggravating factors.  There was a group attack on a single young victim; multiple weapons were involved; you armed yourself with a knife; the offending occurred in the context of gang violence; and you fled from the scene after the incident and offered no assistance to the victim.  The motivation for your offending was loyalty to a youth gang, and involved a premeditated assault on an individual.  Both your moral culpability and the objective seriousness of what you did should be assessed as mid-range.  The prosecution submitted that you were not one of the younger group members, as suggested by your counsel.  Of the group, one member was aged 13, three were aged 14, two (including you) were aged 15 and the remaining four were aged 16, 17, 20 and 23.

1. By way of current sentencing practices, the prosecution provided a table of four cases including the case of R v Chol.[11]  In Chol, Beale J helpfully summarised a number of decisions where young offenders were sentenced for manslaughter.  I have found these decisions of assistance.

   [11][2022] VSC 341. The other cases were R v Aliti [2021] VSC 825; DPP v Tupou [2020] VSC 377; DPP v Kilpatrick [2019] VSC 779.

1. Terms such as ‘low’ or ‘mid-range’ are unavoidably vague and permit of a wide range of conduct and circumstances of differing degrees of seriousness.  Ideally, they are to be avoided when considering the objective gravity of an offence.[12]  However, it is necessary to consider where your crime sits on the spectrum of seriousness, and for what reasons.

   [12]DPP v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [66] (Priest JA), citing DPP vWeybury (2018) 84 MVR 153, 165, [33]-[34] (Maxwell P and Hargrave JA), 170-171, [54] (Priest JA).

1. A person who commits manslaughter causes the death of another human being, and for this reason, manslaughter is always a serious crime.  You are the one who brandished the knife, and you are responsible for the death of Solomone.  The earlier attack on Solomone and his friends may have been planned, but the later fatal attack seems to have occurred spontaneously, after Solomone was spotted in the car park.  In my view, the most aggravating feature of your offending is that there were ten of you and one of him.  Several of you had weapons, and Solomone was defenceless when your group violently attacked him in a public place.  There was no risk of harm to you or any of your friends, and it seems this was payback or retaliation for something you believed Solomone had done.  It is not entirely clear why you chose to use the knife, or where the knife came from.  However, it is clear that you were acting out of a misguided sense of loyalty to other group members, despite not being involved in the previous fight or really knowing what had occurred.

1. Your age at the time of the offending is relevant when assessing your moral culpability.  Youth Justice found your offending occurred in the context of negative peer associations and a ‘lack of consequential thinking’.  They also noted your young age at the time, and the ‘associated level of impressionability that likely would have been present’.  Your young age reduces your moral culpability, not simply because you were 15 years old, but because, as I have stated, the courts recognise that young offenders, particularly children, are immature, impressionable and less likely to appreciate the gravity and consequences of their conduct.  The Youth Justice report satisfies me that you were likely influenced by others, and you did not consider or appreciate the possible consequences of your actions on this afternoon.

1. To brandish a weapon is to flourish or wave it about by way of threat or display.[13]  It is, obviously, less serious than deliberately harming a person with a weapon.  In my view, the objective gravity of brandishing a small knife is fairly described as low.  However, brandishing a knife in the course of a group attack against a lone, targeted victim makes the act more serious and dangerous.  In those circumstances, I find the objective gravity is approaching mid-range.

   [13]Oxford English Dictionary (2 ed, 1989) ‘brandish’ (v, def 3) includes ‘to flourish, wave about [a weapon] by way of threat or display, or in preparation for action’.

Sentencing

1. Manslaughter is a ‘Category A serious youth offence’ as defined in s 3 of the Act. That classification does not dictate any particular sentencing outcome.[14] However, pursuant to s 32(2C), I must not sentence you to a youth justice centre order unless I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist. Your counsel submitted that exceptional circumstances exist in your case, but maintained you should not receive any further period of detention. The prosecution conceded it would be open to the court to be satisfied exceptional circumstances exist, and submitted your offending must be punished by some form of further detention or incarceration.

   [14]I note the principle of parsimony found in s 5(3) of the Act is not displaced, unlike when courts are dealing with a Category 2 offence.

1. There are a number of factors which, in combination, satisfy me that exceptional circumstances exist here. Those matters include the following: you were a child at the time of the offence, which reduces your moral culpability; you have very good prospects of rehabilitation and strong family support; you have a good work ethic, and plans for the future; for the past 14 months, you have been on bail without any form of Court-ordered supervision, during which time you have performed well and remained offence-free; at the time of the offending, you had no criminal history and any subsequent matters were dealt with by way of a without-conviction bond; and you pleaded guilty to the offence. Additionally, the necessary pre-sentence report was obtained and I am satisfied that both of the alternative requirements of s 32(1) of the Act are met. Specifically, there are reasonable prospects for your rehabilitation, and you are particularly impressionable and immature, and are likely to be subjected to undesirable influences if sent to an adult prison. Finally, while the prosecution’s concession is not determinative, it contributes in part to my finding that exceptional circumstances exist in your case.

1. You have 237 days available to you by way of pre-sentence detention.  Additionally, you spent 21 days in custody in June 2021, prior to the revocation of your bail.  The charges that placed you there were not withdrawn nor the subject of acquittals.  However, you did receive a non-custodial disposition for those matters, meaning the 21 days were not declared and would have been available for this matter, had your bail been revoked earlier.  In this way, you spent 21 days in custody which are not strictly pre-sentence detention but which I will take into account in a Renzella[15] sense, noting that it is a very short period of time.[16]

   [15][1997] 2 VR 88 (‘Renzella’).

   [16]R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88, 96-98; Karpinski v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 85, [38]-[39].

1. Sentencing young offenders who were children at the time they offended is never easy.  On the one hand, your successful rehabilitation is an important and achievable sentencing purpose.  You are progressing well in Queensland, and there has been no further trouble since you moved there.  You have strong family support.  You have been working casually with your auntie as a warehouse assistant, which you enjoy, and you have realistic future goals and plans.  If you are returned to detention, your rehabilitation will be interrupted, and you will be in detention in Victoria while your immediate family are in Queensland.

1. On the other hand, your rehabilitation is not the only consideration here.  The circumstances of this incident appear to be sadly becoming more common.  That is, teenagers are bringing knives to fights, with the tragic result that other young people are being killed.  General deterrence – that is, the need for the sentence I impose to send a message to other would-be offenders – has some relevance here, despite your young age.  It is also necessary to publicly denounce what you did, and punish you for causing the death of Solomone.  In my view, a sentence that consists of no further period of detention cannot adequately meet all the requirements of sentencing.

1. ST please stand.

1. On the charge of manslaughter, you are convicted and sentenced to detention in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of two years.

1. I declare you have served 237 days by way of pre-sentence detention, such period to be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.

1. I declare pursuant to s 6AAA that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to detention in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of three years and three months.