R v HJY

Case [2019] QChC 36


CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HJY [2019] QChC 36

PARTIES:

R

v

HJY

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

419/2019

DIVISION:

Childrens Court

PROCEEDING:

Sentence review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gladstone Childrens Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2019 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane Childrens Court

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2019

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

(1)   Application for sentence review granted.

(2)   Order that the charge be dismissed pursuant to Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 24A.

(3)   Order that the matter be referred to the Chief Executive for a restorative justice process.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – application for sentence review – where the applicant was sentenced to a restorative justice order for one charge of possession of a knife in a public place – where the defendant had extensive mental health issues – where the defendant had no prior criminal history – where there was an application for the matter to be dealt with pursuant to s 24A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the learned sentencing magistrate failed to consider other provisions for a restorative justice order – whether the sentence was excessive in all the circumstances

LEGISLATION:

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 22, s 24A, s 118, s 122, s 150, s 162, s 175(1)(db)

CASES:

R v PBD [2019] QCA 59
R v SCU [2017] QCA 198

COUNSEL:

P Dent (sol) for the applicant

K Byrne (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. HIS HONOUR:   This is an application for sentence review in respect of the applicant HJY.  The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of a knife in a public place or school before the learned Children’s Court Magistrate at Gladstone on 31 July 2019.[1] The applicant was sentenced to a restorative justice order under section 175(1)(db) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (‘YJA’).[2]  The applicant seeks a review of the sentenced imposed.[3]

    [1] Application for sentence review, filed 27 August 2019.

    [2] Application for sentence review, filed 27 August 2019.

    [3] Outline of Submissions in behalf of the Applicant, filed 4 November 2019, [2.4].

  1. The applicant’s antecedents are set out in the Outline of Submissions on behalf of the Applicant at [3]. Namely, the applicant is 17 years old, born on 28 December 2001, has no prior criminal history, has extensive mental health issues (diagnoses of ADHD, oppositional defiance disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety and ASD), is prescribed medication and has been exposed to both domestic violence and physical abuse in the family home.[4]  The circumstances of the offence are summarised in these terms:

“The Applicant had attended Mylestones Employment where he had a verbal altercation with [a] counsellor before leaving the premises.  Police were notified and located the applicant on Bonar Street.  He was searched and a knife was located in his pocket.  He made immediate admissions.  He was transported to his mother’s location and made admissions…

Continue reading R v HJY

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v HJY [2019] QChC 36
Case
[2019] QChC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, HJY, sought a review of their sentence in the Children’s Court of Queensland. HJY was convicted of possessing a knife in a public place and was sentenced to a restorative justice order. The applicant had no prior criminal history and had extensive mental health issues. The application for sentence review challenged whether the learned magistrate failed to consider alternative provisions for a restorative justice order and whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances.

The court considered whether the sentencing magistrate erred by not considering other provisions for a restorative justice order and whether the sentence was excessive. The court held that the magistrate did not adequately consider alternative provisions for a restorative justice order and that the sentence was excessive given the applicant’s mental health issues and lack of criminal history. The court found that the matter should have been dealt with pursuant to s 24A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld).

The court granted the application for sentence review and ordered that the charge be dismissed pursuant to s 24A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). The court further ordered that the matter be referred to the Chief Executive for a restorative justice process. This decision highlights the importance of considering alternative sentencing options and the individual circumstances of the defendant, particularly when dealing with juveniles with mental health issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Application for sentence review granted.

(2) Order that the charge be dismissed pursuant to Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 24A.

(3) Order that the matter be referred to the Chief Executive for a restorative justice process.

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.