R v TSL - [2023] QChC 21

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v TSL [2023] QChC 21

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

TSL

(defendant) (anonymised)

FILE NO/S:

70 of 2023

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2023 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

3, 4 October 2023

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDERS:

The defendant is sentenced as follows:

1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of 12 months and must comply with the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day of release from detention to the Chief Executive.

2.     Conviction not recorded.

3.     Decline to make a restorative justice order.

4.     Decline to declare child a serious repeat offender.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – plea of guilty to one count attempted armed robbery in company – where child was 15 years old at the date of offence – where child had a lengthy criminal history – pre-sentence report ordered – where child had a profoundly disadvantaged childhood and upbringing – where the child meets criteria for intellectual disability – where the child spent 197 days remanded in pre-sentence detention – conditions in detention – 58 days where time out of cell less than two hours – where 12 month probation order imposed and no conviction recorded – where court declined to declare the child a serious repeat offender

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 128, s 150, s 150A, s 105B, s 175, s 193, s 245 & sch 1

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

R v MDD [2019] QCA 197

COUNSEL:

P Ah Gee (solicitor) for the Crown

J Jacobs for the defendant

T Reedy appeared for the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

O’Reilly Stevens Lawyers for the defendant

FANTIN DCJ (ex tempore): [TSL], I can tell you that the order I plan to impose, if you agree to it, is going to be a probation order. I cannot make that order unless I explain it to you and you agree to comply with it, so please listen carefully. You have received a probation order before so you know about the conditions, but I have to tell you what they are again. I intend to make a probation order of 12 months, if you agree to comply with it. The order will be subject to these requirements: you must report in person to the Chief Executive – that just means speaking to Youth Justice …

HER HONOUR: … this order would start when you are released from detention. Within one business day after your release from detention, you would need to report to Youth Justice. They will…

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 TSL

Details

AGLC: R v TSL [2023] QChC 21
Case: [2023] QChC 21
Decision Date: 4 October 2023 (delivered ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, TSL, was before the court to be sentenced for a plea of guilty to one count of attempted armed robbery in company. TSL was 15 years old at the time of the offence, and had a significant criminal history. The court ordered a pre-sentence report, which revealed that TSL had a profoundly disadvantaged childhood and upbringing, and met the criteria for intellectual disability. TSL had also spent 197 days in pre-sentence detention, with only 58 days where the time out of the cell was less than two hours. The court had to consider the appropriate sentence for TSL, taking into account their age, background, and the conditions of their detention.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for TSL, taking into account their age, background, and the conditions of their detention. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for young offenders, and the need for rehabilitation and support. The court also had to consider the impact of the offence on the victim and the community, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court had to balance these considerations with the need to protect the rights and interests of TSL, and to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate.

The court decided that the appropriate sentence for TSL was a 12-month probation order, with supervision by an authorised Youth Justice officer. The court ordered that no conviction be recorded, and declined to make a restorative justice order or to declare TSL a serious repeat offender. The court noted that TSL had already spent a significant amount of time in detention, and that a conviction would have a significant impact on their future prospects. The court also noted that TSL had shown remorse for their actions, and had the potential for rehabilitation and support. The court considered that a probation order was the most appropriate sentence in the circumstances.

The court ordered that TSL be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of 12 months. The court also ordered that TSL must comply with the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day of release from detention to the Chief Executive. The court declined to record a conviction, make a restorative justice order, or declare TSL a serious repeat offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is sentenced as follows:

1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of 12 months and must comply with the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day of release from detention to the Chief Executive.

2. Conviction not recorded.

3. Decline to make a restorative justice order.

4. Decline to declare child a serious repeat offender.

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 TSL [2023] QChC 21
PARTIES:	THE KING v TSL (defendant) (anonymised)
FILE NO/S:	70 of 2023
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2023 (delivered ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	3, 4 October 2023
JUDGE:	Fantin DCJ
ORDERS:	The defendant is sentenced as follows: 1. Pursuant to ss 175(1), 193(1) and (2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) order that the defendant be released under the supervision of an authorised Youth Justice officer for a period of probation of 12 months and must comply with the requirements set out in s 193(1) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and report within one business day of release from detention to the Chief Executive. 2. Conviction not recorded. 3. Decline to make a restorative justice order. 4. Decline to declare child a serious repeat offender.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – plea of guilty to one count attempted armed robbery in company – where child was 15 years old at the date of offence – where child had a lengthy criminal history – pre-sentence report ordered – where child had a profoundly disadvantaged childhood and upbringing – where the child meets criteria for intellectual disability – where the child spent 197 days remanded in pre-sentence detention – conditions in detention – 58 days where time out of cell less than two hours – where 12 month probation order imposed and no conviction recorded – where court declined to declare the child a serious repeat offender
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 128, s 150, s 150A, s 105B, s 175, s 193, s 245 & sch 1 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 R v MDD [2019] QCA 197
COUNSEL:	P Ah Gee (solicitor) for the Crown J Jacobs for the defendant T Reedy appeared for the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown O’Reilly Stevens Lawyers for the defendant