R v Eggins

[2001] QCA 375

[2001] QCA 375

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
WILSON J

CA No 141 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v.

E  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/09/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA:  This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences which were imposed on 18 May 2001 in the District Court.   The principal sentence then imposed was one of 12 months detention with an order for release after serving six months.

Before the District Court on that date were two indictments, No 45 of 2001 and No 45B of 2001.  The applicant pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for offences particularised in those two indictments which can be summarised as follows:
two of stealing; two of receiving; five of wilful damage; two of assault occasioning bodily harm; one of common assault; one of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; and one of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

Also at that time, the sentencing Judge was asked to take into account a series of summary offences.  The offences referred to in the two indictments of 2001 evidenced breaches of community-based orders which had been imposed earlier.  The indictments in question were No 241 of 2000 and 169 of 2000; on one a probation order had been made, and on the other a probation order coupled with community service had been made.  As I have said, the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty constituted breaches of those orders. 

The applicant is aged 14.  He was born on 17 September 1986. It is clear, from the material before the sentencing Judge, that he came from a dysfunctional family; that he had dropped out of the education system; and had, for some time, been using illicit drugs.  He has, as has already been noted, a criminal history in that he was dealt with on
28 August 2000 for a series of offences of entering premises and stealing and wilful damage, and  on 30 November 2000 for breaking, entering and stealing.

Before the sentencing Judge, there was a report from a Debbie Cameron, who is a Family Services officer in the Gladstone area.  It is not necessary to detail the contents of that report but it did recount the applicant's family background and the factors contributing to his offending.  Those factors were identified as follows:

(1)unresolved family issues and current family situation;

(2)drug usage;

(3)influence of peers;

(4)lack of supervision/authority;

(5)boredom, non-attendance at school.

The report noted that detention may have an adverse effect on the applicant reinforcing his offending behaviours whilst offering little rehabilitative purpose. The principal recommendation of that report was that the applicant should be sentenced to a period of detention and immediately released and that he undertake a program set in accordance with section 177 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992.

The learned sentencing Judge held that such an immediate release order would not be appropriate; as the applicant had been given a number of opportunities by the Court which he had failed to take, the only sentence reasonably available was that of detention.  As I have already noted, the head sentence imposed was 12 months' detention with an order for release after serving 50 per cent of that, namely six months.

I should say that, with respect to a number of the summary offences, the applicant was sentenced to one month's detention.  In fact, after the sentence was imposed, the applicant spent a little more than one month in detention before he was released on bail on 21 June 2001.  It follows that the sentence has been served with respect to the summary offences and they can be disregarded for present purposes.

It appears from a report of Debbie Cameron, the Family Services officer, dated 3 August 2001, which is exhibited to an affidavit of Patrick John O'Brien, that when the applicant was released on bail he was subject to a conditional bail program which had been prepared by the Department.

That report indicates that the applicant has complied very well with that conditional bail program.  It is significant in my view that he has been attending a carpentry course and a self-esteem program through Branch Out, and has also been actively involved in sporting and leisure activities such as attending the gym, bowling and swimming.  He has also received drug and alcohol counselling.

When this Court indicated that it was minded to make an immediate release order, steps were taken to obtain from the Department a further updated report.  That report has been tendered and marked Exhibit 1.  It notes, following on the conditional bail program, that the applicant has made significant changes in his life; has complied well with directions of departmental officers; and has received between 30 and 50 hours per week of support in order to comply with the bail conditions.

The report also notes that he has been able to obtain suitable accommodation and has been assisted to attend school and counselling in relation to his offending behaviours.  The report recommends that an immediate release order be made.  That letter has attached to it an immediate release order which sets out detailed obligations which the applicant would have to fulfil in order to comply with the order.  It is not necessary to set out those matters in detail. 

Given the youth of the applicant and the background matters to which I have referred, it is clear that what this young man needs is a structured lifestyle which he has not had at home.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the program can last for no longer than three months and it is my view that the applicant should be subjected to a program in conformity with that attached to the letter, Exhibit 1, for a period of three months.

Therefore I am of the view that leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed and the sentences imposed with respect to the offences in Indictments 45 and 45B of 2001 to which the applicant pleaded guilty on 18 May 2001 should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, there should be an order for detention for 12 months to be immediately suspended upon the applicant entering into a program in conformity with that found in Exhibit 1.

With respect to the breach of probation and breach of probation and community service relating to Indictments 241 of 2000 and 169 of 2000, the findings that there had been breaches of those orders should stand.  In lieu of the orders made by the sentencing Judge on 18 May 2001, I would make similar orders to that just made with respect to Indictments 45 and 45B.

DAVIES JA:  I agree.  I would only add that, in view of the applicant's exemplary behaviour under the conditional bail program since he was allowed on bail, Ms Bain has indicated to this Court that she does not oppose the orders proposed by Justice Williams.

WILSON J:  I agree with the orders proposed by Justice Williams and with his Honour's reasons.

DAVIES JA:  Orders are as indicated by Justice Williams.

‑‑‑‑‑