R v A

Case [2018] QChC 5


CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v A [2018] QChC 5

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

A

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

249/17

DIVISION:

Childrens Court

PROCEEDING:

Application for Sentence Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court Mareeba

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2018

JUDGE:

Richards CCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed. Recording of convictions set aside.  No convictions recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant was convicted and convictions were recorded – where the conviction would impact on rehabilitation – whether the conviction should be set aside.

COUNSEL:

J Guy for the Crown

D Law for the Applicant.

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid Queensland for the Applicant

  1. The applicant was charged with two offences of burglary and commit an indictable offence and one charge of fail to appear in accordance with an undertaking.  He was convicted on his own plea of guilty on 6 November 2017 and sentenced to six months detention to be served by way of conditional release order for the burglary offences. Convictions were recorded.  He was reprimanded in relation to the failure to appear charge.  He had spent 44 days in detention prior to sentence. 

  1. Both of the burglary offences involved entering houses and stealing property from inside those houses.  On one occasion the complainants were home but were not aware of the offending.  The sentence review is solely in relation to the recording of convictions for these offences. 

  1. The child was fifteen at the time of the offences but had a relevant criminal history dating back to April 2015. He has regularly been before the courts for property offences.  At the time of the offending he was subject to a community service order and a probation order.  The Magistrate decided that it was appropriate to record a conviction “having regard to the nature of the offences; your age, that is, you are now getting older; you will be an adult in the eyes of the law in a bit over a year; your previous convictions, and to the best that I am able, having regard the impact of the recording a conviction will have on your chance of rehabilitation and finding or retaining employment.”[1] He also took into account the fact that he was not demonstrating remorse in the pre-sentence report.

    [1] Decision p2 l22

  1. The pre-sentence report demonstrates that the child has had a significantly disadvantaged upbringing. He has had little to no contact with his father.  The Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability records indicate a substantial history of domestic and family violence to which he was witness, and there were eighteen child concern reports and four Child Protection Notifications between August 2004 and November 2017 as a result of a neglect, lack of supervision and basic care needs of the children not being adequately met.  He has also been exposed to ongoing substance abuse in the family home.  He disengaged from formal education at…

Continue reading R v A

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v A [2018] QChC 5
Case
[2018] QChC 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v A involved an appeal against a conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted of an offence and the conviction was recorded. The appeal focused on the impact of the conviction on the applicant's rehabilitation and whether it should be set aside. The court was required to determine whether the conviction should be set aside due to its impact on the applicant's rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue was whether the recording of the conviction should be set aside in light of its potential impact on the applicant's rehabilitation. The court had to consider the principles of criminal law and sentencing, specifically focusing on the principles of rehabilitation and the proportionality of the sentence to the crime committed. The court also considered the precedents set by previous cases that dealt with similar issues.

The court found that the recording of the conviction would significantly impact the applicant's rehabilitation and future prospects. The court held that the impact on the applicant's rehabilitation was substantial and outweighed the need to record the conviction. The court noted that the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality were central to the decision. The court also considered the precedents set by previous cases, which supported the decision to set aside the recording of the conviction. The court concluded that the conviction should be set aside, and no convictions should be recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Recording of convictions set aside. No convictions recorded.

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.