Girrabul v The Queen - [2003] NTSC 101

Girrabul v The Queen [2003] NTSC 101
PARTIES:ISAAC GIRRABUL
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NOS:JA 92 of 2002 (20305920)
JA 93 of 2003 (20303878)
JA 94 of 2003 (20303587)
JA 146 of 2003 (20305912)
JA 91 of 2003 (20305912)

DELIVERED:  26 September 2003
HEARING DATES:  19 September 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:G. Bryant
Respondent:  B. Harris
Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:                   mar0341
Number of pages:  14

mar0341
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Girrabul v The Queen [2003] NTSC 101
Nos. JA 92 of 2002, JA 93 of 2003, JA 94 of 2003,
JA 146 of 2003, JA 91 of 2003
IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:

ISAAC GIRRABUL

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 26 September 2003)

This is an appeal against an order that the appellant, a juvenile, be convicted and detained in a detention centre for a period of six months as from 4 July 2003. That order was made in the Juvenile Court at Darwin on 27 August 2003 consequent upon the appellant’s pleas of guilty to numerous offences committed at a time when he was 13 years old, 14 at the time the order was made.

The following is an edited summary of the facts admitted in relation to the commission of the large number of offences to which the appellant had pleaded guilty, taken from his Worship’s sentencing remarks of 4 June 2003:
7 February 2003, at the age of 13, he and others went to the Gunbalanya Health Clinic to steal petrol but they stole bandages and medical equipment. A glass panel was smashed to get in, $400 worth of damage was caused.
On 8 February, he and others broke into Gunbalanya Pre-school with intention of steal food. A security mesh grille was forced off the window, louvres were removed, co-offender got in and allowed the defendant and others in and whilst in the school, the defendant removed drinks and food from a classroom fridge and he removed a Sony video camera, valued at $2500 which was fortunately recovered.
On 18 February he and a group of co-offenders attended the caretaker’s workshop – workshed at the Gunbalanya school with the intention of stealing petrol. Co-offender climbed onto the roof, used a shifting spanner, iron sheeting was unscrewed. This defendant, Isaac Girrabul stayed outside as a lookout. Co-offender went in and got a small quantity of petrol which the co-offender and the defendant used to sniff.
22 February 2003, there was a trespass at the Gunbalanya Police Station. They went there to steal petrol from the fire truck. The defendant jumped over a…

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 Girrabul v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Girrabul v The Queen [2003] NTSC 101
Case: [2003] NTSC 101
Decision Date: 26 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Girrabul v The Queen, Isaac Girrabul, a juvenile, appealed against an order made by the Juvenile Court at Darwin, which convicted him and ordered his detention in a detention centre for six months. Girrabul had pleaded guilty to numerous offences, including theft and unlawful entry, committed when he was 13 years old. The central legal issue was whether the court's decision to detain Girrabul for six months was appropriate, given the principles and objectives of juvenile justice, particularly in relation to his rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

The court examined whether the Juvenile Court had erred in its assessment of Girrabul's need for detention over other rehabilitative measures. It was noted that Girrabul had a history of petrol sniffing and criminal activity, influenced by his environment and peers. The court found that the magistrate had rejected relevant family and community welfare reports that recommended a supervised rehabilitation plan instead of detention. The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Court had not sufficiently considered the principles governing the sentencing of juveniles, particularly the need for rehabilitation and the involvement of family and community support services.

The Supreme Court quashed the order for detention and substituted it with a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months, with specific conditions to ensure Girrabul's rehabilitation. The order required Girrabul to reside with a nominated family member, follow the directions of a probation officer, and refrain from petrol sniffing. This decision underscored the importance of balancing the need for community protection with the rehabilitative needs of juvenile offenders.

Orders