R v KTB

Case [2025] QChC 3

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v KTB [2025] QChC 3

PARTIES:

THE KING

(respondent)

v

KTB

(applicant)

FILE NO:

70/25

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 April 2025

JUDGE:

Farr SC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The sentence order made in the Childrens Court at Townsville on 13 February 2025 is confirmed.

2.   Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING JUVENILES – SENTENCE REVIEW – where the applicant was sentenced to one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, in company, two counts of enter premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, and two counts of enter premises and commit an indictable offence, by break – where the applicant was sentenced to a 12 month detention order, accompanied by an order he be released after serving 51 days in detention – where convictions were not recorded – where a presentence report was provided – where the Magistrate had regard to the impact of the offending on the victims and the applicant’s juvenile criminal history - whether the sentence imposed was excessive

LEGISLATION:

Making Queensland Safer Act 2024 (Qld)

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)

Youth Justice Regulations 1992 (Qld)

CASES:

Queensland Police Service v Terare [2014] QCA 260

R v Formenton [2018] QCA 77

COUNSEL:

L D Reece for the applicant

M Morton, Legal Officer for the respondent
SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Office, Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The applicant was sentenced in the Townsville Childrens Court on 13 February 2025 in relation to, inter alia, the following offences:

    (a)      1 x unlawful use of a motor vehicle, in company;

    (b)      2 x enter premises with intent to commit an indictable offence;

    (c)      2 x enter premises and commit an indictable offence, by break.

  2. For these offences, he was sentenced to a 12 month detention order, pursuant to s.175A(2)(b)(i) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (the Act) accompanied by an order that he be released after serving 51 days in detention.[1]  Due to time already spent in detention on remand, the effect of the order was that the applicant was released immediately on a supervised release order.

    [1]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 227(4).

  3. Convictions were not recorded.

  4. For the remaining offences, which are not the subject of this review, he was reprimanded.

  5. The applicant seeks a review of the detention order.

    The law – sentence review

  6. A Childrens Court Judge may review the sentence order of a Childrens Court Magistrate.[2]

    [2]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 118.

  7. A review must be by way of rehearing on the merits[3] and must be conducted expeditiously and with as little formality as possible.[4]

    [3]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 122(1).

    [4]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 122(3).

  8. In deciding the review, the Childrens Court Judge may have regard to a record of the proceeding before the Childrens Court Magistrate, and any further submissions and evidence by…

Continue reading R v KTB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v KTB [2025] QChC 3
Case
[2025] QChC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KTB concerns a review of a sentence imposed on a juvenile offender. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences, including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, and entering premises and committing an indictable offence by break. The applicant was sentenced to a 12-month detention order, with a requirement to serve 51 days in detention. Notably, no convictions were recorded. The applicant’s age at the time of the offences and sentencing was 15 years, and he is now 16 years old. The court's review was initiated on the basis that the detention order was considered excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was excessive in all the circumstances. This involved examining the nature and severity of the offences, the applicant's age and background, and the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders. The court also considered whether the lack of a compliant presentence report, due to the applicant not being interviewed, impacted the validity of the sentence. The court had to balance the need for rehabilitation and deterrence against the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's personal circumstances.

The court held that while the applicant's sentence might seem harsh, it was within the parameters of the law and appropriate for the gravity of the offences committed. The court noted that the applicant had a history of similar offending and had not responded to previous interventions. The court was satisfied that the presentence report, despite not including an interview with the applicant, provided sufficient information to assess his background and the factors contributing to his offending. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The application for a sentence review was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed.

The final orders of the court were to confirm the sentence order made in the Children's Court at Townsville on 13 February 2025 and to dismiss the application for sentence review. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the offender's background and the impact of their actions on the victims, in determining an appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sentence order made in the Childrens Court at Townsville on 13 February 2025 is confirmed.

2. Application dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

The review has been brought on the basis that in all the circumstances of the matter the detention order was excessive.Facts of the offending The facts of the offending were detailed in a sentencing schedule[7] and are as follows:“At approximately 3.50 am on 24 December 2024 the applicant and another attended Peries IGA Bowen in a silver Holden Barina which was being unlawfully used. They used the car to ram the front door of the business causing damage. They then entered the store before ‘being spooked’ by an employee and drove off.At approximately, 4.07 am they attended the Grandview Barn in Bowen in the same vehicle and then used an unknown implement to smash the window of the store before entering and conducting what was described as an ‘untidy’ search. Nothing was stolen as they were interrupted by attending police and they left in the Holden Barina.At approximately 4.10 am they attended the Metro Bowen Service Station in the same Holden Barina and, again by the use of an unknown implement, smashed the front glass doors before kicking them down. The applicant entered the service station store and conducted an untidy search and stole numerous tobacco and vape related items. He also caused damage to the registers and internal fittings.At approximately 4.30 am the applicant attended the BP Merinda Service Station with two other offenders again in the same vehicle which was driven directly into the glass front doors of the store causing them to smash. Two offenders then entered the store and conducted an untidy search and stole multiple items including cash and cigarette lighters before leaving in the vehicle. At approximately 6.20 am police immobilised the vehicle on the Flinders Highway. Three persons fled, including the applicant, who was arrested a short time later.”[7]Exhibit 3.Applicant’s antecedents The applicant was 15 years of age at the time of the offending and when sentenced. He is now 16 years old. At the time of sentence, he had one prior entry on his Queensland juvenile criminal history for like offending. That was for an offence of ‘Enter premises and commit an indictable offence by break’ and he was dealt with on 26 November 2024 by way of a Restorative Justice Order with no conviction recorded. A Pre-Sentence Report identified the applicant as having experienced a difficult childhood with significant instability. His mother died in 2020 and, since then, he usually lived with his father. At around the time of the offending, he was living between his father’s residence and the residence of his older brother depending on the state of his father’s health. The author of the report noted that the applicant had been exposed to an environment where substance abuse was accepted and that this (including his own substance abuse) had contributed towards an antisocial attitude.Submissions and consideration Counsel for the applicant raised as a preliminary issue, the fact that due to a severe weather event, the applicant was not interviewed and therefore his attitude to the offences and to the victims was not included in the presentence report. It was submitted that such an admission is contrary to the mandatory requirements of r.5(1)(h) of the Youth Justice Regulations 1992 (Qld) (‘the Regulations’).

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

A Pre-Sentence Report identified the applicant as having experienced a difficult childhood with significant instability. His mother died in 2020 and, since then, he usually lived with his father. At around the time of the offending, he was living between his father’s residence and the residence of his older brother depending on the state of his father’s health. The author of the report noted that the applicant had been exposed to an environment where substance abuse was accepted and that this (including his own substance abuse) had contributed towards an antisocial attitude.Submissions and consideration Counsel for the applicant raised as a preliminary issue, the fact that due to a severe weather event, the applicant was not interviewed and therefore his attitude to the offences and to the victims was not included in the presentence report. It was submitted that such an admission is contrary to the mandatory requirements of r.5(1)(h) of the Youth Justice Regulations 1992 (Qld) (‘the Regulations’). It is submitted that the presentence report should not have been accepted by the court, notwithstanding there having been no objection to it at the first instance. It is further submitted that this court should conclude that as there was no compliant presentence report, the court was not empowered to impose a sentence of detention.[8][8]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 207. In the alternative, it is submitted that the court should draw no adverse inference against the applicant in relation to his attitude to his offending and to the victims of the offences, but rather should accept the contents of his letter of apology to the court.[9][9]Exhibit 4. Whilst, rule 5(1)(h) of the Regulations requires a presentence report to include information as to the child’s attitude to the offence and to the victim of the offence, it does not mandate how such information is to be obtained. In this matter, the author of the presentence report interviewed the applicant’s father and obtained information regarding the applicant from the Department of Education, the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety, the Department of Youth Justice, including information from the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre, and victim support files and records. On the basis of such information, the report’s author then identified the factors which, in her opinion, contributed to the offending including his exposure to antisocial values in his older brother’s household. The applicant’s father identified that his son can be easily influenced by his peers and that he often leaves the family home to associate with his peer group. Child safety information revealed that he had been frequenting his brother’s residence with other young persons who had regularly engaged in substance use, namely cannabis and methamphetamines. In the author’s assessment, the applicant’s ongoing exposure to the antisocial attitudes and values of his sibling and peer group has predisposed him to engage in similar behaviours which may have contributed to his offending conduct.