R v LG

[2013] QChC 26

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LG [2013] QChC 26

PARTIES:

R

(respondent)

v

LG

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

No 82 of 2013

PROCEEDING:

Application for Sentence Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2013 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2013

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.    Vary the 12 month probation order made in the Childrens Court at Mount Garnet on 13 March 2013 by substituting a period of 6 months.

2.    Set aside the community service order.

3.    Confirm the order not recording convictions.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING JUVENILES – SENTENCE REVIEW – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary, two charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one charge of unlicenced driving – where  the sentence review application challenges the order of 12 months probation and 100 hours community service – where the sentences were the maximum periods available to a Childrens Court magistrate – where the applicant was 14 years old at the time of the offences and when sentenced – where the applicant had no criminal history at the time of sentence – where there was limited financial loss to the community – whether a shorter period of probation would have been appropriate – whether the community service order was appropriate.

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), ss 119, 122, 123 and 175(1)(d)(i).

SOLICITORS:

D. J. Law, Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant.

M. Le Grand, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent.

1. HIS HONOUR:   The applicant seeks a review of a sentence imposed by the Mount Garnet Childrens Court on 13 March 2013.  The applicant pleaded guilty to six charges.  There were three charges of burglary, two charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and one charge of unlicenced driving.  All offences occurred in January 2013. 

1. The applicant and co-offenders entered two Mount Garnet residences at night and stole car keys.  They then took vehicles from those residences and drove around Mount Garnet.  On the third occasion the applicant was involved in the entry of another home where, again, car keys were being looked for.  They could not locate car keys and stole four cans of beer from the refrigerator. 

1. The applicant is 14 years old.  He has no prior criminal history. 

1. The sentence imposed by the Childrens Court magistrate was 12 months probation and 100 hours community service.  Convictions were not recorded.

1. An application for review under s.119 Youth Justice Act 1992 does not require the applicant to demonstrate any error in the proceedings before the Childrens Court magistrate. Section 122 provides that a review of a sentence is a rehearing on the merits.

1. Notwithstanding that an error need not be identified, the applicant’s solicitor, Mr Law, submits that by imposing the maximum period of probation and community service, the Childrens Court magistrate erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the applicant’s age, his lack of prior history, his early plea of guilty, his cooperation with the police, and the fact that there was no monetary loss to the community other than the cost of petrol and the four cans of beer.

1. Mr Le Grand for the respondent accepts that the probation period should be reduced to six to nine months, and that the community service order should be removed. However, Mr Le Grand points out that the 12 month period of probation, which is the maximum period available to a Childrens Court magistrate by virtue of section 175(1)(d)(i) should not be regarded as the true maximum period because the Childrens Court magistrate had the option of committing the applicant to the Childrens Court of Queensland, and the maximum period of probation in this court would have been two years. The period of any probation order should be sufficient to enable the order to have the effect of addressing the child’s offending behaviour through participation in counselling and other programs. Therefore, I do not consider that the imposition of the maximum period of probation is, of itself, an error.

1. Nevertheless, the applicant is a 14 year old child without any prior history.  The six offences occurred over a short space of time in January 2013.  There was limited financial loss.  The Childrens Court magistrate correctly regarded the burglary offences as quite serious.  Moreover, the applicant, who was an inexperienced and unqualified driver, drove other offenders around in cars on two occasions. That is a serious matter as well, considering the safety of other road users and the occupants of the vehicle.  In the circumstances, however, I consider that a period of six months probation is adequate.  I will, therefore, make the following orders:

   1)   Vary the 12 month probation order made in the Childrens Court at Mount Garnet on 13 March 2013 by substituting a period of six months.

   2)   Set aside the community service order.

   3)   Confirm the order not recording convictions.