R v JG - [2023] QChC 7

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JG [2023] QChC 7

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

JG

(defendant) (anonymised)

FILE NO/S:

105 of 2022

2 of 2023

4 of 2023

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2023 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2023; 5 April 2023

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of six months and must comply with:

a. the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day to the Chief Executive;

b.   two additional requirements:

  i.   the defendant be referred to a paediatrician for review and diagnosis, including with respect to ADHD medication; and

  ii.   the probation order include intensive therapeutic support that specialises in working with young people with cognitive impairments.

2. Convictions not recorded.

2. Decline to make a Restorative Justice Order.

3. Decline to make a Graffiti Removal Order.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where at the start of the relevant offending the child was 15 years old and had no criminal history – where the child was sentenced for one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, and 10 summary charges – where pre-sentence report ordered – where child had diagnoses of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – where the child spent 94 days in pre-sentence detention – conditions in detention – where paediatric assessment and treatment, and intensive therapeutic support, for the child were required under the probation order imposed

LEGISLATION:

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 150, s 175, s 193 & sch 1

CASES:

Re JG [2023] QChC 3

COUNSEL:

B Wilde (solicitor) for the Crown

J Sheridan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Northern Plateau Legal for the defendant

Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs

FANTIN DCJ (ex tempore): I can tell you, [JG], that what I am going to do is make a probation order for a period of six months. I cannot make that order unless I explain it to you and you agree to do it. So I am going to do that first so that you understand what is going to happen. Then I need to give some information about why I have made that decision. That will take a bit longer. But the short part which you need to pay particular attention to is now.

I am satisfied that the sentence should be a period of probation. You are not going back to Cleveland today, into detention, and you will not go back into detention unless you commit other offences in the future and you are not granted bail.

The probation…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v JG

Details

AGLC: R v JG [2023] QChC 7
Case: [2023] QChC 7
Decision Date: 5 April 2023 (delivered ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JG involved a young individual who was 15 years old at the beginning of the offending period. The defendant was charged with multiple offences, including robbery in company with personal violence, assault occasioning bodily harm in company, and ten summary charges. The defendant had no prior criminal history. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and the need for paediatric assessment and treatment, as well as intensive therapeutic support. The court was also required to consider the defendant's diagnoses of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the conditions the defendant experienced while in pre-sentence detention.

The court considered the severity and nature of the offences, the defendant's age, and the impact of the defendant's diagnoses on their ability to understand and manage their behaviour. The court acknowledged the need for the defendant to receive appropriate paediatric assessment and treatment, as well as intensive therapeutic support that specialises in working with young people with cognitive impairments. The court also considered the defendant's time spent in pre-sentence detention and the conditions experienced there. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant should be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of six months, with specific conditions and requirements imposed under the probation order.

The court ordered that the defendant be referred to a paediatrician for review and diagnosis, including with respect to ADHD medication, and that the probation order include intensive therapeutic support that specialises in working with young people with cognitive impairments. The court also ordered that the defendant report within one business day to the Chief Executive. Furthermore, the court decided not to record the convictions, and declined to make a Restorative Justice Order or a Graffiti Removal Order. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the defendant's unique circumstances and the need for appropriate support and treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of six months and must comply with:

a. the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day to the Chief Executive;

b. two additional requirements:

i. the defendant be referred to a paediatrician for review and diagnosis, including with respect to ADHD medication; and

ii. the probation order include intensive therapeutic support that specialises in working with young people with cognitive impairments.

2. Convictions not recorded.

2. Decline to make a Restorative Justice Order.

3. Decline to make a Graffiti Removal Order.

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.

CITATION:	R v JG [2023] QChC 7
PARTIES:	THE KING v JG (defendant) (anonymised)
FILE NO/S:	105 of 2022 2 of 2023 4 of 2023
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2023 (delivered ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	2 February 2023; 5 April 2023
JUDGE:	Fantin DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of six months and must comply with: *a. the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992* (Qld) and report within one business day to the Chief Executive; b. two additional requirements: i. the defendant be referred to a paediatrician for review and diagnosis, including with respect to ADHD medication; and ii. the probation order include intensive therapeutic support that specialises in working with young people with cognitive impairments. 2. Convictions not recorded. 2. Decline to make a Restorative Justice Order. 3. Decline to make a Graffiti Removal Order.**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where at the start of the relevant offending the child was 15 years old and had no criminal history – where the child was sentenced for one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, and 10 summary charges – where pre-sentence report ordered – where child had diagnoses of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – where the child spent 94 days in pre-sentence detention – conditions in detention – where paediatric assessment and treatment, and intensive therapeutic support, for the child were required under the probation order imposed
LEGISLATION:	Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 150, s 175, s 193 & sch 1
CASES:	Re JG [2023] QChC 3
COUNSEL:	B Wilde (solicitor) for the Crown J Sheridan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Northern Plateau Legal for the defendant Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs