PCN v Queensland Police Service

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

PCN v Queensland Police Service [2023] QChC 28

PARTIES:

PCN
(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CCJ 26/23

DIVISION:

Childrens Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Pine Rivers Childrens Court

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2023

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1.   APPEAL GRANTED.

2.   SET ASIDE THE ORDERS FOR 40 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE ON EACH OF THE CHARGES IN THE PINE RIVERS CHILDRENS COURT, AND THE $500 RESTITUTION ORDER, MADE ON 12 DECEMBER 2022.

3.   REFER BOTH OFFENCES TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE COURT DIVERSION REFERRAL PURSUANT TO YOUTH JUSTICE ACT S.163(1)(D).

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – appellant pleaded guilty to one charge unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one charge of receiving tainted property – where appellant was sentenced to 40 hours community service and ordered to pay $500 restitution – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - whether the learned magistrate failed to properly consider a restorative justice referral

COUNSEL:

B Bowtell for the applicant

LM Devereaux for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

KLM Solicitors for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

1. The appellant, PCN, appeared at the Pine Rivers Childrens Court on 12 December 2022 and pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and one charge of receiving tainted property.  The appellant was sentenced to 40 hours community service on each charge, and ordered to pay $500 restitution within six months.  No convictions were recorded.  No evidence was offered on a charge of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break, which had been charged as an alternative to the receiving tainted property charge. 

Grounds of appeal

1. The appellant’s notice of appeal sets out the following ground:

(1)   The sentence imposed by the learned sentencing magistrate was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. 

1. The appellant seeks leave to amend the grounds of appeal to add the following grounds, which in my view, should be treated as sub-grounds of ground 1.  Namely:

(a)   The learned magistrate placed insufficient weight on the personal circumstances of the defendant;

(b)   The learned magistrate erred in that she acted on an incorrect principle when imposing the restitution order.  

1. At the hearing of this matter, I raised with both the appellant and the respondent, a further ground of appeal which, in my view, more appropriately identifies the relevant issue in this appeal, namely:

(2)   The learned magistrate erred by failing to consider referring the offences to the chief executive for a restorative justice process or, alternatively, failed to properly consider such a referral. 

1. The appellant adopted the further ground and made an appropriate amendment in respect of that ground, and the sub-grounds to ground 1 were not opposed by the respondent. 

The Law - Appeals

1. Pursuant to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (YJA) s.117, Justices Act 1886 (QLD) (JA) part 9, division 1, applies to an…