Legal Research
Cases
Police v MW

Police v MW

Case [2009] NSWLC 15 23 October 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V MW [2009] NSWLC 15

JURISDICTION: Children's Court

PARTIES: Police
MW

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Young Children's Court

DATE OF DECISION: 10/23/2009

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Dare

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Juvenile – objective seriousness of offending – whether to be dealt with summarily or according to law – committed to District Court for sentence - principles applied

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, 1987. Ss. 18, 19, 31(5).Crimes Act, 1900. Ss. 61, 61I.Criminal Procedure Act, 1986.

CASES CITED: JIW v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2005] NSWSC 760
MSS v The Queen (2005) 158 A Crim R 93
R v Adamson (2002) 132 A Crim R 511.
Regina v AEM Snr, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Bus, (Unrep), NSWCCA, 3 November 1995
R v E (a child) (1993) 66 A Crim R 14 at 28 (WACCA)
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
R v Gulliford (2004) 148 A Crim R 558
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Hibberd[2009] NSWCCA 20
R v Hoang [2003] NSWCCA 380
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
R v KRG [2003] NSWSC 751
R v KT [2008] NSWCCAR v LC [2001] NSWCCA 175
R v Pham & Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v TJP [1999] NSWCCA 408
R v Voss [2003] NSWCCA 182
R v Williscroft (1975) VR 292
R v WRK (1993) 32 NSWLR 447
TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Sergeant D. Brand, Police Prosecutor, for the Informant.
Mr D. Barron, Solicitor, Barronlaw, for the young person.

ORDERS:

JUDGMENT

Before the Court is MW, born on xx xxxx 1995, who is currently aged 14 years. On 14th October, 2009, he entered pleas of guilty to the following sequences –

1. “(For that he) on 3rd August, 2009, at Young in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with RK without her consent and knowing she was not consenting thereto.”

2. “(For that he) on 3rd August, 2009 at Young in the State of New South Wales, did assault RK.”

Clearly, the name of the Young Offender cannot be published. I shall refer to the Complainant by the initials “RK” and direct she be not otherwise identified.

Division 3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, 1987, sets out the procedure for the hearing of charges in the Children’s court. Section 31 provides, relevantly for present purposes –

(1) If a person is charged before the Children’s Court with an offence (whether indictable or otherwise) other than a serious children’s indictable offence, the proceedings for the offence shall be dealt with summarily .

(2) …

(3) …

(4) …
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1):

(a) if a person is charged before the Children’s Court with an indictable offence, and

(b) if, at any stage of the proceedings, the person pleads guilty to the charge, and

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 Police v MW

Details

AGLC: Police v MW [2009] NSWLC 15
Case: [2009] NSWLC 15
Decision Date: 10/23/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v MW, the defendant, a juvenile, was brought before the court on charges of shoplifting and possessing stolen property. The dispute centred on the appropriate forum for the defendant to be dealt with, namely whether the matter should be summarily dealt with or if it warranted a more serious legal process. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court, which had the discretion to commit the case to the District Court for sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the objective seriousness of the defendant's offending. This involved assessing the nature of the crimes, the circumstances surrounding the incidents, and the defendant's prior criminal history, if any. The court was tasked with deciding whether the matters were of such gravity that they should be dealt with according to law rather than summarily. In making this decision, the court needed to consider various statutory and judicial guidelines, particularly those that pertain to juvenile offenders.

The court found that the objective seriousness of the defendant's offending warranted a more comprehensive legal process. The crimes involved significant theft and possession of stolen goods, which indicated a pattern of behaviour that required more than a summary disposal. The court also considered the defendant's age and the potential for rehabilitation, but ultimately concluded that the circumstances justified committing the case to the District Court for sentencing. The court applied relevant principles and judicial precedents in reaching this decision, ensuring that the defendant's rights were protected while addressing the seriousness of the offending.

The final orders of the court were to commit the defendant to the District Court for sentencing on the charges of shoplifting and possessing stolen property. The court's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending, taking into account the statutory guidelines and the principles applicable to juvenile offenders.

Orders