R v S; R v L - [2015] QChC 3

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v S; R v L [2015] QChC 3

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

S

and

THE QUEEN

v

L

FILE NO/S:

158,257 and 261 of 2014

DIVISION:

Children’s Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Legal argument

ORIGINATING COURT:

Children’s Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2015

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

S 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 confers jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to deal with matters under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. S59A(2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 should be read to exclude the maximum penalty of 1 years imprisonment. Pursuant to the provisions of s16 of the Criminal Code the child cannot be punished for the offence under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992

CATCHWORDS:

S59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 – Offences committed while on bail – where the penalty provisions are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – where s16 of the Criminal Code applies

APPEARANCES:

Mr D Boyle for the ODPP (Qld)

Mr J Allen QC for the Youth Advocacy Centre for L

Ms J Taylor, instructed by ATSILS, for S

On 30 January 2015 the defendant children were arraigned in the Children’s Court of Queensland in relation to a number of offences and pleaded guilty. The Crown alleged that, by their pleas of guilty, they became guilty of an offence of having committed those offences whilst on bail, contrary to s 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. On that day, bail undertakings were tendered, and in accordance with s59B of the Act they were called upon to prove why they should not be convicted of the offence. Upon calling on the children the learned children’s court judge, called for submissions relating to the procedure and sentencing options under s59A and 59B of the Act. The matter was then adjourned for further hearing.

Jurisdiction

The Children’s Court of Queensland is a creature of statute. The power to deal with a child under ss 59A and 59B of the Youth Justice Act must be found either in the Act itself or in other legislation. The procedure outlined under s 59B(3) of the Act calls on the court to immediately call on the child to prove why the child should not be convicted of an offence under s 59A. In doing that, the court is effectively charging, finding the case proved and convicting in the same hearing. The section does not allow for defences other than a possible challenge to the fact of bail for the original offence.

A Children’s Court judge ordinarily hears and determines a charge under s 62A of the Act, which provides:

“ A Children’s Court judge has jurisdiction –
(a) to hear and determine under Division 7 a charge against a child for an offence; and
(b) to delegate sentencing powers to a Children’s Court magistrate under s185;and
© to hear bail applications under s59;and
(d) to perform other functions and exercise…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v S; R v L and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QChC 3
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v S; R v L, two young individuals, S and L, were facing legal scrutiny due to offenses they allegedly committed while on bail. The matter was brought before the Children’s Court, which had to navigate the complexities of the Youth Justice Act 1992 and the Criminal Code in determining the appropriate penalties and jurisdiction. Specifically, the court was tasked with interpreting section 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992, which deals with offences committed by minors while on bail, in conjunction with section 16 of the Criminal Code, which outlines the penalties for such offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Children’s Court had the jurisdiction to impose penalties on the minors under section 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992, given that the maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment might exceed its jurisdictional limits. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether section 16 of the Criminal Code applied, potentially exempting the minors from punishment for the offence committed while on bail. The court's analysis hinged on the interpretation of these statutory provisions and their interplay.

The court found that section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 does confer the Children’s Court with the necessary jurisdiction to deal with matters under section 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. It concluded that section 59A(2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 should be read in a manner that excludes the maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment, given the jurisdictional constraints of the Children’s Court. Furthermore, the court held that pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Criminal Code, the minors could not be punished for the offence under section 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. The court’s interpretation ensured that the statutory framework was applied in a manner consistent with the legislative intent and jurisdictional boundaries.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the Children’s Court’s jurisdiction under section 59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 was correctly interpreted, and that the maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment was excluded from its purview. It also upheld that the minors could not be punished for the offence under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, thereby providing a clear resolution to the legal issues at hand.

Orders

Orders of the court

S 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 confers jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to deal with matters under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. S59A(2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 should be read to exclude the maximum penalty of 1 years imprisonment. Pursuant to the provisions of s16 of the Criminal Code the child cannot be punished for the offence under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992

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.

CITATION:	R v S; R v L [2015] QChC 3
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v S and THE QUEEN v L
FILE NO/S:	158,257 and 261 of 2014
DIVISION:	Children’s Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Legal argument
ORIGINATING COURT:	Children’s Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2015
JUDGE:	Richards DCJ
ORDER:	S 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 confers jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to deal with matters under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992. S59A(2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 should be read to exclude the maximum penalty of 1 years imprisonment. Pursuant to the provisions of s16 of the Criminal Code the child cannot be punished for the offence under s59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992
CATCHWORDS:	S59A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 – Offences committed while on bail – where the penalty provisions are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – where s16 of the Criminal Code applies
APPEARANCES:	Mr D Boyle for the ODPP (Qld) Mr J Allen QC for the Youth Advocacy Centre for L Ms J Taylor, instructed by ATSILS, for S