Jatc v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2025] QChC 13
•19 September 2025
CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | JATC v Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] QChC 13 |
PARTIES: | JATC (applicant) v (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | CCJ 205/25 |
DIVISION: | Childrens Court of Queensland |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence review application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Murgon Childrens Court |
DELIVERED ON: | 19 September 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 16 September 2025 |
JUDGES: | Dearden DCJ |
ORDER: | 1. Application for sentence review granted. 2. Discharge the sentence of 12 months’ detention with immediate release on a supervised release order (after serving 37 days) for the offences of enter premises and commit indictable offences by break (24 May 2025) and unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company at night and published on social media (5 June 2025). 3. Resentence the applicant to 50 hours of community service. |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 months detention with immediate release on a supervised release order (after serving 37 days) at the Childrens Court at Murgon for one charge of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break, and one charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company, at night, and published on social media – where the learned sentencing magistrate considered that a sentence of detention would inevitably be imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances |
LEGISLATION: | Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 118, s122, s 150, Part 7 Div 1 |
CASES: | ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38 |
COUNSEL: | J Percy (sol) for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant |
Introduction
This is an application for sentence review filed 11 August 2025 in respect of a sentence of 12 months’ detention, to be released after serving 37 days, imposed at the Murgon Childrens Court on 17 July 2025 in respect of the following charges:
Date of Offence
Place of Offence
Offence
24/05/2025
Murgon
Enter premises and commit indictable offence by break
5/06/2025
Goomeri
Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels – use publish on social media – advertise involvement/act/omission in the night in company
When this matter came before me for argument on 16 September 2025, I granted the application for sentence review, set aside the sentence of 12 months detention with immediate release on a supervised release order after serving 37 days, and substituted a sentence of 50 hours community service. This judgment sets out the reasons for making those orders.
Grounds
The application for sentence review proceeds on the following grounds:
1. In all the circumstances of the matter the sentence was excessive.
The law
I refer to and adopt my exposition of the relevant law as outlined in ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38, [3]-[7], an approach which is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v CDV [2025] QCA 163, [42]-[47] per Muir J (with whom Boddice and Bond JJA agreed).
Chronology of the matter
Ms Percy, who appears for the applicant, has provided a useful chronology as follows:-
“[6] On 14 April 2025 the child was released from the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre (BYDC) on a 12 month probation order as a result of a successful sentence review.[1]
[7]On 24 May 2025, the enter premises and commit indictable offence by break charge subject to this sentence review was committed. On 25 May 2025, the child was arrested and released onto a bail undertaking to attend the Murgon Childrens Court on 26 June 2025.
[8]On 5 June 2025, the unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company, at night, and published on social media offence subject to this sentence review and the drive without a licence, licence never held offence[2] were committed. On 10 June 2025, the child was arrested, police objected to his bail and he appeared before the Kingaroy Childrens Court on 10 June 2025.[3]
[9]On 10 June 2025, no application for bail was made and the fresh matters adjourned to 11 June 2025, so the child’s lawyer could bring forward the enter premises and commit indictable offence by break charge to the same date.
[10]On 11 June 2025, the child was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the three charges. A pre-sentence report was ordered in relation to the charges.[4] An application for bail was made and the magistrate adjourned the application to 12 June 2025 so that Youth Justice could prepare a more comprehensive condition of bail program. This child was remanded in custody.
[11]On 12 June 2025, the bail application was further adjourned to 16 June 2025 as the court required further information about the child’s supervision by his mother. The child was remanded in custody.
[12]On 16 June 2025, the magistrate refused the application for bail. The charges were adjourned for sentence on 26 June 2025. The child was remanded in custody.
[13]On 26 June 2025, the sentence hearing occurred. The magistrate adjourned the sentence decision to 17 July 2025 so that he could “write up [my] full reasons so that [I] can be sure that they are available for review”.[5] The child was remanded in custody during this time.
[14]On 17 July 2025, the magistrate delivered oral reasons and sentenced the child to 12 months detention with release after 37 days for the enter premises and commit indictable offence by break and unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company at night, published on social media charges. He reprimanded the child for driving without a driver licence, never held licence charge.
[15]The child was released onto a supervised released order on 17 July 2025”.[6]
[1]R v TC [2025] QChC 8.
[2]This charge is not subject to the sentence review. The child was reprimanded.
[3]Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-1.
[4]The VJR dated 11 June 2025 does not reflect that the enter premises charge was before the court or that pleas to all three charges were entered, however the transcript proceedings does reflect that this occurred – Appeal Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-4.
[5]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-10, T1 – 13, ll 15-16.
[6]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [6]-[15].
Facts of the offences
The applicant has helpfully summarised the factual matrix of the offences as follows:-
“(a)Enter premises and commit indictable offence by break on 24 May 2025: police were called to a vacant dwelling under renovation at Murgon at 5:38 pm. Forcible entry had been made, a search of the premises conducted and some cans of Great Northern and a fire extinguisher were stolen. The CCTV footage shows the child, his older brother and an unknown offender. The child participated in a record of interview and made admissions.
(b)Unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company at night published on social media on 5 June 2025: between 10:00 pm on 4 June 2025 and 3:45 am on 5 June, the complainant’s house in Goomeri was broken into and his Corolla vehicle was stolen. Snapchat pictures were posted at 4:00 am and timestamped at 3:31 am showing the child in the driver’s seat of the Corolla. The vehicle was said to be travelling through Murgon [at] up to 160km per hour and was later located burnt out.”[7]
[7]Ex. 3 – Outline of submission for the child, [16].
Errors in the sentencing process
As the applicant correctly identifies, it is not necessary to show error in order to succeed on a sentence review,[8] but in this particular matter, the applicant identifies specific errors which, it is submitted, have contributed to a miscarriage of the sentencing discretion.
[8]ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38, [7].
Misapprehending the starting point
The applicant submits that the learned magistrate misapprehended the starting point in sentencing a child under Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (“YJA”), when he stated during the course of submissions that detention was “inevitable”.
In that respect, the applicant points to the learned magistrate’s comments during the applicant’s lawyer’s submissions on a bail application on 16 June 2025, which were in these terms:
“In fact, he’s entered a plea of guilty… It is inevitable – absolutely positively inevitable that he will serve more periods of detention as a result of this offending.”[9]
[9]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-8 T3 – 6, ll 13-15.
After hearing further submissions from a representative of Youth Justice, the learned magistrate said:-
“Detention is now inevitable. The Childrens Court of Queensland in KTB [2025] QChC 3 has upheld 12 months detention in similar circumstances for a person with less offending under the new legislation. So I have a situation where there is an inevitable sentence of detention and where whatever methods – whatever the reason – whatever efforts have been put in by all the parties concerned to stop the child from offending, he thinks it’s okay to break from his house, get into stolen cars and drive them at 100 kilometres an hour – 100 miles an hour down the main street of Murgon in the early hours of the morning.”[10]
[10]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-8, T3 – 7, ll 1-9.
During the course of the learned magistrate’s sentencing remarks on 17 July 2025, he stated:-
“You need to understand that for now, for a person in your situation, every single time you get into a stolen car or go into somebody else’s house, you’re going to jail. It’s that simple. There’s really no other option.”[11]
[11]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-17, T1 – 2, ll 12-14.
And further, in the same sentencing remarks, the following:-
“The idea of sending people into detention is to discourage yourself and others from committing offences. It’s necessary to impose that detention and it’s [indistinct] necessary to deter others because these offences are rampant. And to enable the courts to adequately punish [indistinct] courts now have to place priority on the victims of the offending. The victim’s [indistinct] frequently [indistinct] that they wish all young people who break into houses and steal cars, go to jail for the whole of their life.”[12]
[12]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-17, T1 – 2, ll 24-30.
The applicant submits (adopting the observation of Richards DCJ - President, Childrens Court of Queensland) that although detention was no longer a sentence of last resort, “… the Youth Justice principles still rely heavily on rehabilitation and other factors in mitigation.[13] The new laws require a balancing of those factors against the primary regard of the impact on the victims at arriving at an appropriate sentence for the offending… Although detention is no longer a sentence of last resort, it is not a sentence of first resort. A consideration of the appropriate sentence involves a synthesis of all the factors relevant to the particular child to be sentenced.”[14]
[13] Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (“YJA”), Sch 1.
[14]R v TC [2025] QChC 8, [34].
The applicant submits that the learned magistrate, in his observations at the bail application on 16 June 2025, excerpted above, and reinforced by the comments made during the course of the sentencing decision, fettered his discretion and took a fixed view from the outset prior to hearing any submissions on sentence or considering the pre-sentence report, that detention was inevitable.
Further, although indicating that he was reserving his decision for three weeks to deliver written reasons, and remanding the child in custody in that time,[15] the learned magistrate then delivered oral (not written) reasons that did not, in their content, demonstrate consideration or application of the sentencing principles in YJA s.150, nor the Youth Justice Principles or the significant matters in mitigation in the pre-sentence report.
[15]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-10, T1 – 12, ll 33-35 & T1 –13, ll 1-16.
The applicant also points out that unfortunately the lawyer representing the child at sentence had not read the pre-sentence report in full prior to the sentence,[16] and consequently did not address the learned magistrate on all of the matters in mitigation set out at length in the pre-sentence report.[17]
[16]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-10, T1 – 2, ll 20-21.
[17]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-11, pp 4-10.
I have no hesitation in concluding that the learned magistrate, in repeatedly stating that detention was inevitable, unreasonably fettered his sentencing discretion and failed to apply the relevant provisions of YJA s.150 and the Youth Justice Principles.
Undue deference to the sentence imposed in R v KTB [2025] QChC 3
The applicant specifically identifies an apparent desire by the learned magistrate to impose (effectively) an identical sentence to the applicant in R v KTB [2025] QChC 3, where a sentence of 12 months’ detention was upheld on a sentence review.[18]
[18]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-10, T1 – 10, ll 4-23; T1 – 12, ll 33-49.
As the applicant correctly observes, KTB is clearly distinguishable from the current matter, involving much more serious offending, including ramming the front of two businesses in a stolen car, smashing through the front windows and doors of two other business with unknown implements and causing significant property damage.[19]
[19]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [25]; and see R v KTB [2025] QChC 3, [11].
The applicant correctly submits that even if KTB was not distinguishable (and clearly it is), then it would not bind the learned magistrate, but provides a statement of principles that could guide how the learned magistrate’s discretion should be exercised.[20]
[20]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [27]; and see R v Wong [2001] 207 CLR 584, [57]; R v SCU [2017] QCA 198, [76]-[77].
I accept the applicant’s submission that the learned magistrate fell into error by placing significant weight on the decision in KTB, without seeking to identify the substantial differences between both the offending and the offender’s circumstances in that case in comparison to the applicant in this case.
The Victim Impact Statement tendered at sentence
A victim impact statement was tendered during the sentencing process,[21] and it is clear from that statement that the victim of the offending has been significantly affected as a result of his unit being broken into and his car stolen and subsequently burnt out. However, as the applicant correctly identifies, the applicant child was not responsible (and was not being sentenced) either for the break-in to the victim’s premises, nor the theft and destruction of his vehicle. In those circumstances, it appears that the learned magistrate may have placed undue weight on the overall criminality of the group involved in the broader offending, for which the applicant child in this case was neither responsible nor being sentenced.[22] To the extent that the learned magistrate placed undue weight on the victim impact statement, without identifying the applicant’s lesser role in the offending covered by that statement, he also fell into error.
[21]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-14.
[22]Ex. 1 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 11 September 2025, Ex. JP-17, T1 – 2, ll 28-30; T1 – 3, ll 6-8.
Criminal history
The applicant also notes that there were two criminal histories tendered before the learned magistrate (although it is unclear when they became part of the court record) and it is also unclear which of those versions of the criminal history the learned magistrate had regard to when sentencing the child. In particular, it is noted that the criminal history generated on 6 June 2025 contained two inadmissible entries, given that findings of guilt and restorative justice agreements that occurred before 28 February 2025 did not form part of the child’s criminal history.[23]
[23]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [35]; and see Making Queensland Safe Act 2024 (Qld) s.2(b) – YJA s.6 was proclaimed to commence 28 February 2025; YJA s.6 & s.439(1)(a)-(c).
Rehearing on the merits
The applicant submits and the respondent concedes that the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances of the child’s criminal history, age and his previous performance on community-based orders.[24]
[24]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [2]; Ex. 4 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent, [14].
The applicant correctly identifies that the child must be sentenced pursuant to YJA Part 7 Division 1 despite any other Act or law.[25]
[25]YJA s.149(1) & (2).
The sentencing principles contained in YJA s.150 relevantly provide, in respect of the current offending, that detention is no longer a sentence of last resort and primary regard must be had to any impact on the victim and Penalties andSentences Act 1992 (Qld) s.179K applies. Further, the general sentencing principles apply, as do the Youth Justice Principles; regard must be had to whether the child has been subject to domestic violence and whether that contributed to the offending; and for a child who is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, the effect of systemic disadvantage and intergenerational trauma; the child’s age and general factors of mitigation and aggravation which must also be applied.[26]
[26]Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions for the child, [37] & YJA s.150.
The court is, of course, required to apply principles such as general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionality, punishment, denunciation, community protection and the specific factors of aggravation and mitigation which apply to sentencing.[27]
[27]R v TC [2025] QChC 8, [29].
The application of the Youth Justice Principles[28] requires a balance between protecting the community and holding the child accountable in a way that recognises the impact on the victim; while on the other hand promoting the physical and mental well-being of the child, recognising their vulnerability, and giving them an opportunity to develop in a responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable way that strengthens their family and recognises the need for guidance and assistance. Although primary regard must be given to the impact on the victims, this cannot be allowed to overwhelm the sentencing process.[29]
[28]YJA s.3 & s.150(3)(b).
[29]R v TC [2025] QChC 8, [30].
The applicant relies on the following matters in mitigation:
“[40] The following factors in mitigation are relevant:
a. The child was 15 years old at the time of the offences and at sentence.
b. He entered a plea of guilty at the first available opportunity.
c. The child spent 37 days remanded in custody prior to sentence. He spent between 10 June 2025 and 19 June 2025 in the Murgon Watchhouse and Wacol Youth Remand Centre prior to be admitted to the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre. His time in the watch house would have been more onerous than time spent in a detention centre.
d. Child safety records outline a chronic history of recorded child protection concerns over the last 17 years, beginning before the child was born. The themes of Child Safety concerns include domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse, exposure to substance misuse and physical and emotional neglect. Records indicate the child has witnessed domestic violence between various family members from birth. These records show that domestic violence remains a common occurrence in the home, with both parents having spent multiple periods in custody throughout the child’s life for domestic violence offences. Indeed domestic violence remained a prominent theme in the child’s life after he was released from detention on 14 April 2025. At the time of the sentence hearing on 26 June 2025, the child’s father had returned to custody for allegedly assaulting the child’s mother. His history of exposure to domestic violence must be treated as mitigating.
e. He cooperated with police and made admissions.
f. In relation to his supervision at home, the child said that things had changed since being released from BYDC this year and that his mother was checking on him in his room regularly and calling him if he was out too late at night. Historically inadequate supervision left the child unsupervised in an environment of peers with the same lived experiences, resulting in strong anti-social peer connections from a young age.
g. The child’s experience with adverse childhood experiences and ongoing exposure to anti-social behaviours in his immediate environment are likely a significant contributing factor towards his own attitudes and beliefs.
h. The child does not present as a leader, and he is likely a follower. Between his release on 14 April 2025 and his remand on 10 June 2025, the child had exhibited 100% compliance with his probation order reporting and programs requirements. He also engaged appropriately with the Youth Outreach Support Service.
j. The child is having his most successful academic year on record, with his school attendance doubling from 42% in 2024 to 84% this year. At the time of sentence [redacted] State High School were anticipating his return and were prepared to offer a further modified timetable. As at this re-hearing, the child completed the 5-week Healing Program with a Local Indigenous Elder and has returned to fulltime mainstream schooling at [redacted] State High School.
k. The child’s family unit has been significantly impacted by past government practices, including a long history of multigenerational government intervention and Child Safety involvement. Information available to the Pre-sentence report writer indicates that it is likely that intergenerational trauma has played a significant part in forming the child’s anti-social attitudes and behaviours.
l. Remarkably, Elders of the Justice Group attended the sentence hearing on 26 June 2025. It was submitted that the Justice Group had made a commitment now to connect with the child. They submitted they are going to work on the family’s strengths, being that they are good artists. The Justice Group wanted to ground the child in culture and would be working with the entire family. They submitted child safety had ‘mucked’ the kids in the family around and the Justice Group is now working on connecting them back.
m. The supervised release order has not been stayed pending the outcome of these proceedings. The child has now had over 90% compliance with more than three months of the supervised release order. His compliance should be taken into account to moderate the sentence imposed. Since being released from detention on 17 July 2025, the child has not reoffended. Evidently, his engagements with Youth Justice and the Community Justice Groups are significantly progressing his rehabilitation [citations omitted].”[30]
[30]Ex. 3 – Outline of Submissions for the child, [40].
The applicant submits that the child has demonstrated genuine and productive efforts at rehabilitation through his commitment to schooling, connection to culture and compliance with supervised orders.[31]
[31]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3].
It is also submitted that the applicant child committed the two offences subject to this review after being released on a probation order, but in the light of his previous criminal history, these offences represent a de-escalation, and since being released from detention on 17 July 2025 the child has not offended.[32]
[32]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3(b)].
Further, the applicant’s engagement with his probation order has been excellent and he has been demonstrating insight into offending and empathy regarding impacts of his offending on the community.[33] The applicant child has been engaging well with the local non-governmental organisation in cooking and cultural activities, occupying time to prevent boredom and being led astray by negative peers;[34] has returned to full-time mainstream schooling at the [redacted] State High School after completing a five-week healing program with a local Indigenous Elder;[35] and has achieved an 82 percent attendance rate compared to 43 percent in 2024.[36]
[33]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3(d)].
[34]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3(g)].
[35]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [4(b)-(d)].
[36]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [4(e)].
The applicant also submits that the applicant will be on probation and supervised until 13 April 2026, which will provide adequate and appropriate supervision.
The applicant acknowledges that the court must have primary regard to the impact of an offence on the victim[37] and that the offender should be held accountable and encouraged to accept responsibility for offending behaviour[38] and given the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable ways;[39] and where a child is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, should be dealt with in a way that involves the child’s community.[40]
[37]YJA s.150(2).
[38]YJA Sch 1, Youth Justice Principle 10(a).
[39]YJA Sch 1, Youth Justice Principle 10(b).
[40]YJA Sch 1, Youth Justice Principle 15.
In those circumstances, it is submitted that a sentence on review of a community service order would involve being directed by Youth Justice to mow the lawns of elders in Cherbourg, paint the local church, collect litter or paint a cross (in his own time) which would then be donated to the Cherbourg Council and provided to families in grief.[41] The child has previously completed a community service order and was able to reflect that it was a way to help the community.[42]
[41]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3(k)].
[42]Ex. 2 – Affidavit of Jasmine Percy affirmed 15 September 2025, [3(j)(iv)].
The respondent, in their submissions, identifies the following matters relevant to a rehearing (many of which overlap with those matters submitted by the applicant), namely:-
(a)The seriousness of the offences;
(b)The inferred harm suffered by the complainants, particularly the older complainant, as a result of the offending;
(c)Previous opportunities provided by the court to rehabilitate the applicant;
(d)The applicant’s criminal history;
(e)His early plea of guilty;
(f)His cooperation with police;
(g)His youth (15 years of age);
(h)His time spent on remand (37 days);
(i)Child Safety concerns; and
(j)His exposure to domestic violence.[43]
[43]Ex. 4 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent, [18].
Conclusion
In all of the circumstances, it is appropriate to order a further community-based sentence in order to deter the child and reflect the considerations of totality given he remains on a probation order until 13 April 2026, and spent 37 days on remand before release.
Undoubtedly, such an order running in conjunction with the current probation order will be beneficial to the applicant and will provide both supervision and tangible consequences for his offending.[44]
Orders
[44]Ex. 4 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent, [19]; Ex. 3 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the child, [58].
I order as follows:
1. Application for sentence review granted.
2. Discharge the sentence of 12 months’ detention with immediate release on a supervised release order (after serving 37 days) for the offences of enter premises and commit indictable offences by break (24 May 2025) and unlawful use of a motor vehicle in company at night and published on social media (5 June 2025).
3. Resentence the applicant to 50 hours of community service.
0
5
0