R v JE & XZ

Case [2016] QChC 1


CHILDREN’S COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JE & XZ [2016] QChC 1

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(applicant)

v

JE & XZ

(respondents/defendants)

FILE NO/S:

89/2016

DIVISION:

Children’s Court

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Children’s Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

I order that the proceedings against JE and XZ in the Childrens Court be removed to the District Court so that JE and XZ are tried with Isaiah Edmonds.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- YOUTH JUSTICE- Whether matter should be removed to the District Court for trial

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s 7

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Q) ss 2, 3, 110 and Schedule 1

Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 5

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41

COUNSEL:

Ms M. Franklin for the Crown

Mr S. Lynch for JE

Mr B. Reilly for XZ

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Maloney MacCallum Lawyers for JE

Alan Dick Solicitors for XZ

Introduction

  1. This is an application by the Crown pursuant to s 110 of the Youth Justice Act 1992. The application is that the children JE and XZ be tried jointly before a Judge and jury with an adult defendant, Isaiah Edmonds.

  1. Each defendant is charged with assault occasioning bodily harm on Wayne Scholes in company, which offence is alleged to have taken place on 24 January 2015 at Gold Coast.  Isaiah Edmonds is to be tried before a Judge and jury as an adult. 

  1. JE wishes to have a Judge only trial before the Children’s Court pursuant to the provisions of the Youth Justice Act. 

The facts

  1. JE was born on 11 May 2000 and was 14 years of age at the time of the alleged offence.  XZ was born on 2 October 1998 and was 16 at the time of the alleged offence.  Isaiah Edmonds was born on 6 November 1997 and was 17.

  1. It is alleged that on 24 January 2015, XZ was invited to a party at Broadbeach Waters.  The party was held by the 16 year old son of the residents.  Ten people were originally invited who were aged around 16.  All of the guests were drinking alcohol.  The residents also had other adults over who were also drinking.  The son of the residents alleges that around 10pm a number of uninvited guests turned up to the party.  They were mainly from Miami High School.  He alleges he did not know some of the uninvited guests but knew JE and Isaiah Edmonds. 

  1. The residents tried closing the party but some of the uninvited guests remained.  The complainant alleges he was able to get most of them out onto the street at the front of the house but two males argued with him wanting to return to the house to get a friend but he would not permit them to do so.  He then alleges that…

Continue reading R v JE & XZ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v JE and XZ [2016] QChC 1
Case
[2016] QChC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v JE & XZ, the appellants, JE and XZ, challenged the decision to try them in the Children's Court for criminal offences they were alleged to have committed. JE and XZ were facing charges that, if found guilty, would typically attract adult penalties. They argued that their cases should have been removed to the District Court for trial, asserting that the Children's Court was not the appropriate forum for their cases under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Q).

The legal issues before the court were whether the Children's Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellants' cases, and if the court should exercise its discretion to remove the matter to the District Court for trial. The court considered the statutory framework provided by the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Q) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Q), as well as relevant precedents. The appellants contended that the serious nature of the charges and the potential for adult penalties meant that their cases should be tried in the District Court.

The court found that the Children's Court did not have jurisdiction to try the appellants' cases due to the serious nature of the charges and the potential penalties. The court exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q) to remove the proceedings to the District Court. The reasoning was influenced by the principles in Webb v R and the need to align with the appellants' right to a fair trial, as outlined in Stanford v Stanford. The court concluded that the appellants should be tried in the District Court alongside Isaiah Edmonds.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the proceedings against JE and XZ in the Childrens Court be removed to the District Court so that JE and XZ are tried with Isaiah Edmonds.

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.