R v PLP

Case [2019] QChC 38


CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PLP  [2019] QChC 38

PARTIES:

R

v

PLP

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

416/2019

DIVISION:

Childrens Court

PROCEEDING:

Sentence review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Townsville Childrens Court

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2019 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane Childrens Court

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2019

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

(1)   Application for sentence review granted. 

(2)   Set aside the sentence of a two month detention order to be served by way of a three month conditional release order imposed at the Townsville Childrens Court on 6 August 2019. 

(3)   Substitute with the following orders: 

  (a)   12-month probation order in respect of all offences; and

  (b)   pursuant to Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 175(1)(db), order that the child participate in a restorative justice process as directed by the chief executive.

(4)   No convictions are recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – application for sentence review – where the applicant was sentenced to two months detention to be served by way of a three month conditional release order for several charges – where the applicant had a recent and relevant criminal history – where the applicant had served 15 days in pre-sentence custody – where the presentence report outlined the difficulties of the applicant’s childhood and alternative sentence options – whether the sentence was excessive in all the circumstances   

LEGISLATION:

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 118, s 122, s 150, s 175

CASES:

R v MDD [2019] QCA 197
R v SCU [2017] QCA 198

COUNSEL:

L Barnes (sol) for the applicant

T O’Brien (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. HIS HONOUR:   This is an application for sentence review by the applicant, PLP, in respect of the following matters: 

(1)attempted enter premises with intent to commit indictable offence (on or about 06/07/2019); 

(2)attempted enter premises with intent to commit indictable offence (06/07/2019); 

(3)enter premises with intent (06/07/2019); 

(4)enter premises and commit indictable offence by break (07/07/2019);  and 

(5)enter premises and commit indictable offences by break (08/07/2019).[1]

[1] Application for sentence review filed 2 September 2019; Exhibit A – Affidavit of Leisa Barnes, affirmed 1 November 2019.

  1. The applicant entered a plea of guilty on 10 July 2019 and was sentenced on 6 August 2019 to a two month detention order to be served by way of a three month conditional release order, with no convictions recorded.  The sentence took place at the Townsville Childrens Court.[2]

    [2] Exhibit A – Affidavit of Leisa Barnes, affirmed 1 November 2019.

  1. The applicant’s antecedents are briefly set out in the Outline of Submissions on behalf of the child. In summary, the child was born on 30 November 2004, and was accordingly 14 months and seven months at the time of the offending and 14 years and eight months at the time of sentence.  Critically, he had spent 15 days in pre-sentence custody as at the sentence date, and has a…

Continue reading R v PLP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v PLP [2019] QChC 38
Case
[2019] QChC 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v PLP, the respondent, a juvenile, applied for a review of the sentence imposed by the Townsville Children's Court on 6 August 2019. The respondent was sentenced to two months detention to be served by way of a three-month conditional release order for several charges. The applicant had a recent and relevant criminal history and had served 15 days in pre-sentence custody. The presentence report outlined the difficulties of the applicant's childhood and alternative sentence options. The applicant contended that the sentence was excessive in all the circumstances.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the sentence imposed was excessive in all the circumstances. The court considered the presentence report, the difficulties of the applicant's childhood, and alternative sentence options. The court noted that the applicant had served 15 days in pre-sentence custody and had a recent and relevant criminal history. The court concluded that the sentence was excessive in all the circumstances and granted the application for sentence review.

The court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a 12-month probation order in respect of all offences and ordered the respondent to participate in a restorative justice process as directed by the chief executive. The court made no order as to convictions. The court found that the original sentence was excessive in all the circumstances and that the substituted orders were more appropriate for the respondent's circumstances. The court considered the best interests of the respondent and the community in making its decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Application for sentence review granted.

(2) Set aside the sentence of a two month detention order to be served by way of a three month conditional release order imposed at the Townsville Childrens Court on 6 August 2019.

(3) Substitute with the following orders:

(a) 12-month probation order in respect of all offences; and

(b) pursuant to Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 175(1)(db), order that the child participate in a restorative justice process as directed by the chief executive.

(4) No convictions are recorded.

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.