R v Ta - [2023] QChC 2

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v TA [2023] QChC 2

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

TA

(defendant) (anonymised)

FILE NO:

116 of 2022

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

21 February 2023 ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2023

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The defendant is reprimanded.

2. No conviction is recorded.

3. Decline to order a restorative justice referral.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – 13 year old child – Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – single count of robbery in company with personal violence – limited criminal history at time of offence – 122 days remanded in detention for subject offence – conditions in detention – for 78 out of 87 days, confined in cell for between 20 and 24 hours per day – for 10 days, confined in cell for 24 hours per day – Schedule 1 Charter of Youth Justice Principles

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act1899 (Qld) s 7(1)(c), s 409, s 411(2)

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 268(6), Schedule 1

COUNSEL:

J Eagle-Rowe (solicitor) for the Crown.

T Grau for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown.

Northern Plateau Legal for the defendant.

Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs.

FANTIN DCJ (ex tempore): [TA] you have pleaded guilty to one offence of robbery in company with personal violence.

You were 13 years old at the time you committed the offence, and you are now 14.

It occurred on the 2nd of August 2022. You were with three other children at a shopping centre. The group approached a man who was employed as a trolley collector. The group was mocking him. Two of the group, it is not known who, used sticks to hit the man to his back. He tried to run away, but his legs were pulled, causing him to fall. As he fell, his mobile phone fell out of his pocket. One of the group picked it up. The group demanded he buy them cigarettes and give them $20 for the return of the phone. He said he needed his phone to withdraw money from the ATM. The group returned his phone to him. He walked inside the shopping centre. A plastic bottle was thrown at him as he did that. He approached a staff member and the group of you quickly left on foot.

Because you were present in the group when that occurred, you are also responsible for that attack on the man. It is not clear whether you actually did any of the things, in terms of hitting him or stealing or trying to take his phone. But because you were part of the group who were doing that and you did not walk away from it, you are also responsible for it under law.

It was a terrible thing to do to that man. He was just trying to do his job to earn money,…

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.

Continue reading R v Ta

Details

AGLC: R v Ta [2023] QChC 2
Case: [2023] QChC 2
Decision Date: 21 February 2023 ex tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a 13-year-old child who was facing a charge of robbery in company with personal violence. The defendant had a limited criminal history at the time of the offence. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the primary concern was the sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account their age and specific medical conditions, including Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The defendant had been remanded in detention for 122 days related to the subject offence, spending 78 out of 87 days confined in a cell for between 20 and 24 hours per day, and 10 days confined in a cell for 24 hours per day.

The court had to decide whether the conditions of the defendant's detention were consistent with the principles outlined in the Schedule 1 Charter of Youth Justice. This included determining if the defendant's rights under the charter were violated by the extended periods of solitary confinement. The court also needed to consider the appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account the defendant's age, medical conditions, and the impact of the detention conditions.

The court found that the conditions of the defendant's detention did not align with the principles of youth justice outlined in the charter. The court acknowledged the defendant's age and medical conditions, which significantly impacted their culpability and rehabilitation potential. The court concluded that the defendant should be reprimanded but no conviction should be recorded. Furthermore, the court declined to order a restorative justice referral, considering the circumstances of the case.

The final orders included reprimanding the defendant, not recording a conviction, and declining to order a restorative justice referral. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the defendant's age and medical conditions in determining an appropriate sentence and ensuring compliance with youth justice principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is reprimanded.

2. No conviction is recorded.

3. Decline to order a restorative justice referral.

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 TA [2023] QChC 2
PARTIES:	THE KING v TA (defendant) (anonymised)
FILE NO:	116 of 2022
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	21 February 2023 ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2023
JUDGE:	Fantin DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The defendant is reprimanded. 2. No conviction is recorded. 3. Decline to order a restorative justice referral.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – 13 year old child – Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – single count of robbery in company with personal violence – limited criminal history at time of offence – 122 days remanded in detention for subject offence – conditions in detention – for 78 out of 87 days, confined in cell for between 20 and 24 hours per day – for 10 days, confined in cell for 24 hours per day – Schedule 1 Charter of Youth Justice Principles
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code Act1899 (Qld) s 7(1)(c), s 409, s 411(2) Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 268(6), Schedule 1
COUNSEL:	J Eagle-Rowe (solicitor) for the Crown. T Grau for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown. Northern Plateau Legal for the defendant. Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs.