R v Mrs

[2018] QChC 15

[2018] QChC 15

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Copyright in this transcript is vested in the State of Queensland (Department of Justice & Attorney-General).  Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Executive Manager, Support Services, Queensland Courts.

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SHANAHAN

Indictment No 248 of 2017

THE QUEEN

v.

M R S

BRISBANE

9.46 AM, THURSDAY, 17 MAY 2018

SENTENCE

RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT

Any Rulings that may be included in this transcript, may be extracted and subject to revision by the Presiding Judge.

WARNING:  The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence.  This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories.  You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT:   This is a sentence review by M R S.  On the 22^nd of November 2017, in the Ipswich Childrens Court in relation to two offences, one of unregulated high-risk activity and another of public nuisance, which were committed on separate days, he was sentenced to a period of six months probation with no conviction being recorded.  He was reprimanded in relation to other minor matters on the same day.  The sentence review is on the basis that the six months probation order was excessive in all the circumstances. 

The child was age 14 at the relevant time and had no history before the Courts. The unregulated high-risk activity involved him running away from the police and climbing into a construction site. He has been subject to banning orders from various areas in Ipswich and is obviously somewhat of a nuisance; however, these were his first appearances before the Court. The learned Magistrate seemed to consider that his supervision by his mother was insufficient and that he required the supervision of a community-based order. It seems to me that consideration is inappropriate. This is not a welfare jurisdiction; sentences to be imposed are in relation to criminal offences, and the purposes of those sentences are set out in the Youth Justice Act. It seems to me that consideration misled the Magistrate.

Considering his age, his lack of history and the nature of these offences, I am of the view that a reprimand was the most appropriate penalty.  In those circumstances, I allow the sentence review.  I substitute, in relation to each offence, that the child is reprimanded.  Are there any other order needed?

MS LOVEL:   No, your Honour.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:   All right.  Thank you both for your assistance, and we will open the Court again, thanks, Bailiff. 

______________________