The Queen v AC

[2012] QChC 20

[2012] QChC 20

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE DICK SC

THE QUEEN

v.

AC

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/06/2012

..DAY 1

ORDER

HER HONOUR:  This is an application made on behalf of
AC for me to consider whether to hear an application to review sentences imposed on 16th of December 2010 and the 10th of March 2011 in the Southport Childrens Court.

The application is out of time.  The provision is for 28 days.  The submission advises me that the applicant contacted the Legal Aid Office out of time at the recommendation of the Department of Communities in respect not of the substantive part of the sentence but of the fact that the Magistrate recorded convictions.   

I am satisfied there is little prejudice to the respondent hearing the application out of time and I have considered those matters referring to, in particular, the question of merit.

I should go into the background a little bit.  The sentences imposed on the 16th of December 2010 related to a series of charges of stealing, two charges of common assault, a charge of possessing a knife in a public place, two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and a wilful damage.

The events relating to both sentences occurred over a period between about March 2010 and the early part of 2011.  Some of the offences involved considerable violence and on the 3rd of April 2010 the applicant assaulted a shopping centre security guard by punching him in the back of the head.  She was charged with common assault.  She was part of a group who assaulted two young women in Southport and the assault was long and protracted.  She was located with a pair of scissors in September 2010.  In October 2010 she violently assaulted another juvenile in a shopping centre.  That related to the charges of assault occasioning bodily harm.  In respect of those charges a conditional release order was imposed. 

The Magistrate sought submissions about the recording of a conviction and it has been pointed out that the response by her lawyer was that the effect of a Childrens Court conviction is not long term anyway.  That is not correct in law.  Childrens Court convictions can be used in proceedings against an adult and as such, her criminal history would reflect her Childrens Court convictions.

Then in March 2011 she was before the Court for breaching a conditional release order and for another offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and public nuisance.  This was another unpleasant offence where she assaulted a 13 year old victim by punching her repeatedly in the head.  She was sentenced to a conditional release order for the next offence.  The Court extended the period of the previous conditional release order. 

The Magistrate, once again, sought submissions in relation to the recording of a conviction and this time the response from the legal representative was that the point was mute because convictions had been recorded on previous occasions.  Unfortunately, the submission was made by the same solicitor who had made the incorrect submission the time before.  His Honour gave reasons for recording convictions and it has to be said, some of those reasons are persuasive.

As against that, there was available a pre-sentence report which pointed out that the applicant had had a very dysfunctional life as a child.  That her offences related to alcohol consumption and on each occasion she was heavily intoxicated.  Her family members told the author that she was emotionally affected by the death of a relative and that they were aware of her alcohol abuse. 

At the time of her offences she was living a life where she would frequently abscond from home to socialise with her peers.  That led to a relationship breakdown between the applicant and her family.  The author assessed that she had maladaptive coping of sad feelings in relation to her family by consuming excessive alcohol, coupled with her associations with pro-criminal peers and it resulted in her inappropriate and aggressive offending behaviours towards victims.  The author thought that there were signs that she understood the impact of her behaviour on the victims to a degree and that while in detention she had attended a year 10 course, other professional training courses, she had recognised her drinking behaviours had resulted in significant issues in the past and was determined to stop drinking, she had started attending drug and alcohol counselling and an aggression replacement training programme.  So there were positive signs for her at that stage. 

For some of the offences she was 14.  At this stage she was over 15.  Nevertheless, moderately young in the scheme of things.

My feeling about the matter is that those signs of rehabilitation, together with the intensity of a conditional release order on both occasions, would have led me to the view that it would be important to see how she responded to that and to give her the best opportunity to realise her rehabilitation by not recording a conviction.

I am pleased to hear that, apart from a street type offence which does not bear the same ugly hallmarks of the other offences, she has not reoffended and there are definite signs of rehabilitation from her earlier behaviour.  It is to be expected, of course, that people with the problems that she has do not necessarily move forward without a blemish but there has been an improvement. 

The application is successful and I order that the application for review out of time was successful in each case and that the application for review of the sentence is successful in both cases and in both cases I delete the recording of the conviction as part of the sentence.

-----