MJPL v The King - [2024] QChC 14

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MJPL v The King [2024] QChC 14

PARTIES:

MJPL

(applicant)

v

THE KING

(respondent)

FILE NO:

298/24

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland, Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2024 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2024

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The review is allowed and the application to extend time to file the application for sentence review is allowed.

2.   The orders imposed below are set aside.

3.   The applicant is re-sentenced per the orders contained in this judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING JUVENILES – SENTENCE REVIEW – where the applicant plead guilty to 18 counts – where one of the counts was a charge of serious assault – where the applicant had spent 83 days in pre-sentence custody on remand for these charges – where the applicant was 14 years old at the time of the offending conduct - where the applicant was sentenced to six months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order for a period of six months for 17 of the offences and a 12 month probation order for the serious assault charge - where no convictions were recorded – where the Magistrate was not provided adequate details of the applicant’s personal circumstances - whether the totality of the sentences imposed were excessive in the circumstances

LEGISLATION:

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld)

CASES:

R v Walsh [2008] QCA 391

ADVOCATES:
K Jamieson (legal officer) for the applicant
K Theodore (legal officer) for the respondent

E Gascoyne for the Department of Youth Justice

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

This is an application for sentence review. It is also an application to extend time within which to file the application for sentence review. The application to extend time is not opposed. I therefore need not go through the reasons for the delay, and it is appropriate that leave be granted to extend time as sought – and such leave is granted.
The review arises from a sentence hearing that occurred on the 30th of April 2024 at the Rockhampton Childrens Court. The applicant was facing a number of charges – 18 in total. He entered pleas of guilty, and each plea of guilty was accepted to be an early plea of guilty in the circumstances. He had pleaded at an earlier time and pre-sentence reports were prepared. And those pre-sentence reports related to 17 of the 18 charges. The charge to which they did not relate was one charge of serious assault. The applicant also had spent 83 days in pre-sentence custody on remand for those charges. He was, at the time of the offending conduct, 14 years of age. He was sentenced to six months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order for a period of six months for 17 of the offences, and a 12-month probation order for the…

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 MJPL v The King

Details

AGLC: MJPL v The King [2024] QChC 14
Case: [2024] QChC 14
Decision Date: 23 August 2024 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MJPL v The King, the applicant sought a review of his sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The applicant had pleaded guilty to 18 charges, one of which was a serious assault. At the time of the offending, he was 14 years old and had already spent 83 days in pre-sentence custody on remand. The court imposed a six-month detention sentence for 17 of the offences, to be served by way of a conditional release order, and a 12-month probation order for the serious assault charge. Importantly, no convictions were recorded. The applicant argued that the totality of the sentences imposed were excessive in the circumstances, particularly because the Magistrate was not provided adequate details of his personal circumstances.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the sentences imposed were excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's age, the length of time spent in pre-sentence custody, and the lack of detailed personal circumstances provided to the Magistrate. The court had to determine whether the sentences were proportionate and appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the offender's background and personal circumstances.

The court found that the sentences imposed were excessive. It noted that the Magistrate was not provided with adequate details of the applicant's personal circumstances, which would have been relevant to the sentencing process. The court also considered the applicant's age and the time already spent in pre-sentence custody. In light of these factors, the court concluded that the sentences were disproportionate and did not adequately reflect the principles of sentencing for juveniles. Consequently, the court allowed the review and set aside the original orders. The applicant was re-sentenced, with the specific details of the new orders outlined in the judgment.

The court's final orders included allowing the review, granting an extension of time to file the application for sentence review, setting aside the original orders, and re-sentencing the applicant in accordance with the judgment. The specific details of the new sentence were set out in the judgment, ensuring that the re-sentencing process took into account all relevant factors, including the applicant's personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The review is allowed and the application to extend time to file the application for sentence review is allowed.

2. The orders imposed below are set aside.

3. The applicant is re-sentenced per the orders contained in this judgment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	MJPL v The King [2024] QChC 14
PARTIES:	MJPL (applicant) v THE KING (respondent)
FILE NO:	298/24
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court of Queensland, Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2024 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 August 2024
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The review is allowed and the application to extend time to file the application for sentence review is allowed. 2. The orders imposed below are set aside. 3. The applicant is re-sentenced per the orders contained in this judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING JUVENILES – SENTENCE REVIEW – where the applicant plead guilty to 18 counts – where one of the counts was a charge of serious assault – where the applicant had spent 83 days in pre-sentence custody on remand for these charges – where the applicant was 14 years old at the time of the offending conduct - where the applicant was sentenced to six months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order for a period of six months for 17 of the offences and a 12 month probation order for the serious assault charge - where no convictions were recorded – where the Magistrate was not provided adequate details of the applicant’s personal circumstances - whether the totality of the sentences imposed were excessive in the circumstances
LEGISLATION:	Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld)
CASES:	R v Walsh [2008] QCA 391
ADVOCATES:	K Jamieson (legal officer) for the applicant K Theodore (legal officer) for the respondent E Gascoyne for the Department of Youth Justice
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent