R v WB

[2013] QChC 24

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED

ABN 72 110 028 825

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274)      F:  1300 739 037
E: [email protected]        W:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Copyright in this transcript is vested in the State of Queensland (Department of Justice & Attorney-General).  Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director of Reporting, Finance & Community Engagement, Queensland Courts.

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE REID

Indictment No TBA

THE QUEEN

v.

WB  

BRISBANE

9.56 AM, FRIDAY, 3 MAY 2013

SENTENCE

RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT

WARNING:  The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence.  This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories.  You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR:   This is a matter which the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of committing a public nuisance, which offence occurred on the 12^th of January 2013.  On the 7^th of February 2013, she was sentenced to serve 20 hours of community service.  A conviction was also recorded in the Cooktown Magistrates Court.  The applicant, who was born on the 11^th of November 1997, was aged 15 at the time of the offence.  She had a criminal history, including common assault and an earlier public nuisance offence.  She had also received probation for her involvement in an affray.  In addition, there were three driving offences committed when she was 14 of driving when unlicensed, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, and driving an uninsured motor vehicle.

The particular offence involved an argument between two family members – two family groups, I should say – at Hopevale.  The applicant, who, as I say, was only 15 at the time, was involved in both physical and verbal altercations and was, apparently through her language and her conduct, inciting others to fight with her.  Whilst one understands the importance of young people not engaging in conduct of that sort, it seems to me that recording a conviction for a young person involved in an incident that involved numerous family members and quite possibly older family members and in circumstances where she could have easily been misled, did not require that a conviction be recorded, having regard to her age.  That view was supported by the submissions for the Crown.

In my view, the review should be allowed, and the recording of a conviction in respect of that offence be deleted.  I will allow the review and order that no conviction be recorded in respect of the offence of the 12^th of January 2013.

______________________