R v DNC

[2018] QChC 21

[2018] QChC 21

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SHANAHAN, President

Indictment No 131 of 2018

THE QUEEN

v.

D N C

BRISBANE

10.08 AM, FRIDAY, 13 JULY 2018

SENTENCE

RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT

Any Rulings that may be included in this transcript, may be extracted and subject to revision by the Presiding Judge.

WARNING:  The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence.  This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories.  You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT:   This is a sentence review concerning sentences which were imposed on the 19th of April 2018.  On that date the child was dealt with in relation to 17 new offences which occurred in February and March of 2018.  At that time he was subject to two other probation orders and was resentenced in relation to those matters that involved a further 19 offences.  In relation to each offence, he was sentenced to six months detention, coupled with 12 months probation and convictions were recorded.

The new offences occurred when he was 15 years of age and they are a series of offences, most seriously, a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle where he was driving a stolen vehicle involved in a police chase.  The other offences are principally offences of dishonesty and traffic matters about failing to stop.  He has a long history and various sentencing options have been tried in the past.  He continues to reoffend.  The pre-sentence report indicates that in 2015 there was a diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.  Although the magistrate noted the contents of the pre-sentence report, in my view, he did not give appropriate weight to that diagnosis.  The child is obviously a concern and considering his repeated offences, then in my view, it was open to the magistrate to order a period of detention, although, it may well have been ameliorated by a conditional release order. 

Having said that, the child has now served the detention in custody and has been released subject to the probation order.  The issue then becomes whether a conviction should have been recorded against him.  In my view, considering his age and that diagnosis, it was inappropriate to record such convictions.  The recording of convictions is not meant to be a lesson to a child, particularly to a child suffering significant intellectual deficits as a result of brain injury.  In those circumstances, I am persuaded that it was inappropriate to record convictions and I allow the sentence review to the extent of set aside – to setting aside the order recording convictions.  The orders otherwise stand.  Are there any other orders needed in relation to that?

MR LAW:   No.

MR CARTER:   No, your Honour.

______________________