R v Zf - [2021] QChC 45

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v ZF [2021] QChC 45

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(applicant)

v

ZF

(respondent/defendant)

FILE NO:
ID45/21

DIVISION:

Childrens Court

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2021

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL - Where prosecution sought to have proceedings in Childrens Court removed to the District Court under section 110 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 - Whether an order for separate trials is unlikely to be granted - Whether court unlikely to make order for removal - Where application refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – Where if application is granted, child’s trial must proceed before a jury – Where trial before judge alone is a desirable outcome for a child – Where election of trial by judge alone is one of the special protections the Youth Justice Act 1992 provides.

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTION OF JUDGE AND JURY – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - Where potential for defendants’ interview with police to be excluded - Where potential for photoboard interview to be excluded.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code ss 567, 568

Youth Justice Act 1992 ss 110, 113

CASES:

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

R v Aboud [2003] QCA 499

R v ASM [2019] QChC 7

R v JE & XZ [2016] QChC 1

COUNSEL:
Ms A Stannard for the Crown

Mr D Edwards for ZF

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Bradley Munt & Co for ZF

ZF is a child. She is presently aged 15 years and 11 months. She is charged on indictment presented in the Childrens Court of Queensland with one count of burglary in company and one count of arson.
Three adults, including a sister of ZF, are jointly charged with the same two offences on indictment in the District Court. Their trial is listed as the number four trial in sittings commencing on Monday, 22 November 2021. For that reason, there was a degree of urgency in determining this application in which the Crown sought to have the proceeding in the Childrens Court removed to the District Court to have ZF tried with those three co-accused. Because of that urgency, on the day of the hearing I adjourned to consider the matter and later that day refused the application reserving my reasons. The following are those reasons for refusal of the application.
Removal of the proceedings in the Childrens Court of Queensland is governed by s 110 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 it provides:
“110 Removal to another jurisdiction for joint trial with another person
(1)The prosecution may apply to a Childrens Court judge for the removal of a committed proceeding to a court of competent jurisdiction other than a…

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 Zf

Details

AGLC: R v ZF [2021] QChC 45
Case: [2021] QChC 45
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Zf, the prosecution sought to have proceedings in the Children's Court removed to the District Court under section 110 of the Youth Justice Act 1992. The case involves an arson offence committed by a group of young people, including the defendants ZF and her co-accused sister. The Crown sought to have the proceedings removed to the District Court for separate trials, which would have required a jury trial. The application was refused by the court.

The legal issues before the court were whether an order for separate trials was likely to be granted and whether the court was likely to make an order for removal of the proceedings to the District Court. The court had to consider the implications of a trial by jury for the defendants, given the special protections provided by the Youth Justice Act 1992, which allow for trials before a judge alone.

The court found that an order for separate trials was unlikely to be granted. Given that a trial by jury would be required if the application was granted, and considering that a trial before a judge alone was a desirable outcome for the children involved, the court concluded that the application was unlikely to succeed. The court also noted the potential for the defendants' interview with police and the photoboard interview to be excluded if the proceedings were removed to the District Court. Therefore, the application was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Attached to the Crown’s written submissions is a schedule of the facts alleged. It sets out the following:“FactsAt approximately 6.00 pm on 20 April 2020, the defendants, in the company of other unknown young people, attended the address of Lightbody Street, Goodna. [A male] was the first to enter the house, followed by the other offenders (Count 1). Whilst inside the house, the group started to break things. A neighbour, [Ms X], saw all of them ‘rip the house apart’.[The male] walked out holding a box which he carried to the park across the road. He was followed by the youthful offenders and [female 1]. He emptied the box near a tree, the clothes fell from the box. The group returned to the offence address and went inside. [The male] cut the box up into small pieces.ZF approached [Ms X] and her aunt in a neighbouring property and demanded a lighter from them. They told her they didn’t have one and she walked away. ZF returned minutes later with a small, serrated kitchen knife and said, ‘Give me a fuckin lighter, I’m going to stab you!’. [The male] intervened and said he would get one himself. After a short time, he returned holding a BBQ lighter. He handed the lighter to ZF and she picked up a shirt from a pile gathered in the lounge room which she lit on fire using the lighter. She put the shirt back in the pile and they waited for the pile to erupt in flames (Count 2).[The male] and ZF jumped out of a window and the remaining occupants including [female 1] and [ZF’s sister] ran out of the back door. Ms Bangoura immediately contacted emergency services at 6.48 pm. Rogers told the girls they had done a good job before returning to his house with [female 1] where he turned off all the lights. [ZF’s sister] and ZF walked in the direction of Stuart Street, Goodna.Emergency services arrived at the scene at 6.57 pm by which time the house was completely engulfed in flames and ultimately destroyed. A retrospective market valuation was conducted, and the house was determined to have been valued in the range of $215,000 to $235,000.Arrest[Ms X] identified ZF and [ZF’s sister], who was standing in the street, to police attending the scene. She also told them she had seen Rogers, who was known to her, and his girlfriend, inside the house and involved in the arson. She later participated in a photoboard interview with police where she immediately recognised both ZF and [ZF’s sister] as being the people involved in this incident, specifically that ZF had lit the fire. No photoboard interview was conducted in relation to any other offenders.A secondary crime scene was declared at 6 Lightbody Street, Goodna, at the conclusion of which [the male] and [female 1] were arrested. [ZF’s sister] and ZF were arrested at the scene. [Female 1], [ZF’s sister] and ZF all participated in an interview with police where they each denied any involvement in, or knowledge of, the commission of the offences. They were subsequently charged.” In addition to the facts set out in the schedule, the learned Crown Prosecutor in her oral submissions made reference to evidence contained in records of interviews conducted by police with each of ZF and her co-accused sister. The records of those interviews were tendered.[2] I shall return to discuss them in due course.[2]Exhibits 1 and 2.

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 ZF [2021] QChC 45
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (applicant) v ZF (respondent/defendant)
FILE NO:	ID45/21
DIVISION:	Childrens Court
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	30 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	19 November 2021
JUDGE:	Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ
ORDER:	The application is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL - Where prosecution sought to have proceedings in Childrens Court removed to the District Court under section 110 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 - Whether an order for separate trials is unlikely to be granted - Whether court unlikely to make order for removal - Where application refused. CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – Where if application is granted, child’s trial must proceed before a jury – Where trial before judge alone is a desirable outcome for a child – Where election of trial by judge alone is one of the special protections the Youth Justice Act 1992 provides. CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTION OF JUDGE AND JURY – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - Where potential for defendants’ interview with police to be excluded - Where potential for photoboard interview to be excluded.
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code ss 567, 568 Youth Justice Act 1992 ss 110, 113
CASES:	Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 R v Aboud [2003] QCA 499 R v ASM [2019] QChC 7 R v JE & XZ [2016] QChC 1
COUNSEL:	Ms A Stannard for the Crown Mr D Edwards for ZF
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Bradley Munt & Co for ZF