R v RJL

[2007] QDC 196

[2007] QDC 196

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE DEARDEN

Indictment No CCJ13 of 2007
THE QUEEN
v.

RJL

BEENLEIGH
..DATE 05/03/2007
HIS HONOUR: RJL pleaded guilty on the 16th of January 2007,
before the Childrens Court Magistrate, to counts of enter
dwelling and commit indictable offence, unlawful use of a
motor vehicle, unlawful entry of a motor vehicle for
committing an indictable offence at night in company and
damaging property, two offences against the Animal Care and
Protection Act of Animal Cruelty, an offence of enter dwelling
with intent by break and an offence of stealing. On all
counts, RJL was placed on probation for 12 months and
convictions were recorded.
The power of this Court for review of sentence imposed by a
Childrens Court Magistrate is conferred by section 118 of the
Juvenile Justice Act and the application proceeds under
section 119 of the Act. Pursuant to section 122, the matter
proceeds as a review by way of a rehearing on the merits.

The sentence orders which may be imposed on a child are set out in sections 175 and 176 of the Act, but the power to record convictions is conferred by section 183. The Court, in R v Beutel [1995] QCA 231, considered the application of s.124(1) (subsequently renumbered as s.183(1)) and concluded that the section proceeds on the default presumption that a conviction is not to be recorded against a child. If the discretion to record a conviction is to be exercised, then the Court must consider certain circumstances set out in section 184 of the Act.

In respect of the applicant, RJL, it is accepted that RJL had not previously had a conviction recorded against him. He was relevantly 15 and 16 at the time of the offences and 16 at the time of the sentence.

It appears that his personal circumstances raise significant issues which the sentencing Court, in my view, should have taken into account. In particular, it appears that the child has a care and protection history which also included a situation of homelessness at the time of the sentence, which had continued for some eight months. The child had also spent two nights in custody and was no longer permitted to reside with friends. There are issues which reflect the lack of maturity, including the applicant child being too intoxicated to recall the offence, offending for fun, offending on the spur of the moment and only realising, in hindsight, the cruelty of the animal cruelty offences.

The submissions made on behalf of the applicant child indicate
that, appropriately, it seems, in my view, the child has
limited insight into the impact of his offences on others, is
impulsive, lacks insight into the consequences for himself and
therefore clearly needs supervision, but the recording of the
conviction may well impose a punishment on an already
vulnerable young person which may exacerbate that
vulnerability and limit his capacity to mature.
In particular, I note that the applicant child is attempting
to maintain his engagement in school to complete year 12 and
to find stable accommodation and the recording of a conviction
may well have made that process more difficult. In that
respect, it appears, that upon advising the school of his
criminal history, he has been dis-enrolled from the relevant
school.

I note, as an aside, that, in my view, such steps by schools in the absence of any other clear evidence that the student would be such a disruption to the school that it would affect other students seems, to me, to be an appalling exercise by the school of their discretion to dis-enrol a student when the continuation in education, in my view, is an extraordinarily high priority in seeking to reintegrate a young person, such as RJL, into the community and to give him an opportunity to obtain an education, find and retain employment and be reintegrated as a non-offending member of the community.

In all of the circumstances therefore, it seems to me that, the recording of a conviction, in such circumstances, is contra-indicated, and given the attitude of the Crown in respect of this application for review, which, in my view, is a pragmatic and sensible one that the application was not opposed, I order, pursuant to section 123, that the order of the sentencing Magistrate of the Childrens Court be varied to delete the order that convictions were recorded in respect of each of the offences. I substitute an order that convictions not be recorded in respect of each of the sentences. The sentences, otherwise, however, remain unaltered.

-----