R v Caz and Da

[2015] QChC 6

CHILDREN’S COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CAZ and DA [2015] QChC 6

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
CAZ and DA

FILE NO/S:

5/15 & 24/15

DIVISION:

Children’s Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore Children’s Court

DELIVERED ON:

21.10.15

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

19.10.15

JUDGE:

His Honour Judge Robertson

ORDER:

Application to exclude evidence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

LEGLISLATION:

CASES CITED
IN JUDGMENT:

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE; where each defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of enter premises with intent and one count of arson; whether victim impact statements were admissible; where the statements attest to the grief and loss as a result of the offence; whether the Youth Justice Act 1992 provides that the court must have regard to harm mentioned in the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009; where the victim must be of a prescribed offence; where it is conceded on behalf of the Director that the offences are not “prescribed” offences; where the Youth Justice Act 1992 and Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992 do not confine the court to considering only harm referred to in s 15 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009; where the victim impact statements are admissible.

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Youth Justice Act 1992
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009

R v Silasack [2009] QCA 88

COUNSEL:

Cummings, G. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Cuthbert, C. Counsel for the defendant DA
Taylor, J. Counsel for the defendant CAZ

SOLICITORS:

Hishon, T. Solicitor for the defendants instructed by ATSILS

1. On previous occasions each defendant pleaded guilty to one count of enter premises with intent and one count of arson. At the commencement of the sentence proceedings this afternoon, counsel for each defendant sought a ruling that victim impact statements that the Director wished to tender were not admissible. I heard submissions and ruled that the statements were admissible, and I indicated I would give reasons within a short time given the lateness of the hour. Neither counsel had taken their clients through the statements so the sentence hearing was adjourned.

The offences

1. The offences were committed by both offenders sometime between 8:05pm and 9:30pm on the 15.8.14. CAZ purchased petrol which he pumped into a fuel can at a service station at Bli Bli at about 8:05pm, and an off duty police officer noticed M Block of the Bli Bli State Primary School well alight at around 9:30pm. Each of the defendants admitted their involvement in the commission of both offences, although each blamed the other as the primary motivator. M Block was a (2) storey building containing classrooms and storerooms on both levels. The building and contents including school resources, teachers’ resources and children’s work were effectively destroyed. The building is presently being rebuilt. The replacement cost for the building was $1,656,537.30, and to replace resources involves a further $111,684.01. Another $4,600 was expended on supply teachers in the first week after the fire.

The victim impact statements  

1. These are from the Principal Mr Quinn…