The Queen v ACD - [2012] QChC 13

[2012] QChC 13

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SAMIOS

Indictment No 361 of 2011
Indictment No 368 of 2011
Indictment No 369 of 2011

THE QUEEN

ACD

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/03/2012

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: There are three applications to review sentences before me. The sentences were imposed by the learned Magistrate constituting the Mareeba Childrens Court. They are respectively, 5 July 2010 and 11 April 2011 and 10 October 2011.

The applicant was born on the 21st of March 1996. Therefore, he was 14 years of age on the 21st of March 2010. Therefore, he was 14 when dealt with by the learned Magistrate on the 5th of July 2010. He turned 15 on the 21st of March 2011 and was, therefore, 15 when the learned Magistrate dealt with him on the 11th of April 2011 and on the 10th of October 2011.

The review, in relation to the sentence, imposed on the 5th of July 2010, is with respect to the recording of a conviction with respect to the offences dealt with on that date by the learned Magistrate. As far as the applicant's history is concerned, he had appeared before the Court on the 10th of November 2009 for an assault or obstruct police offence. On that occasion, no conviction was recorded and he was admitted to nine months' probation.

He again appeared before the Court on the 30th of November 2009 for a stealing offence. No conviction was recorded and he was admitted to 12 months' probation on that occasion.

Then, on the 7th of December 2009, he appeared before the Court for a trespass offence and six committing public nuisance offences. On all charges, no conviction was recorded and he was admitted to 12 months' probation.

Then, on the 15th of March 2010, he appeared before the Court. On this occasion, it was for an offence of unlawfully remaining in or on a building or structure. On this occasion, no conviction was recorded and community service was ordered of 60 hours to be completed in 12 months.

Then, he came before the learned Magistrate on the 5th of July 2010. On this occasion, it was for a number of offences including entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence on three occasions and an attempt to enter premises and then, another two enter premises and commit an indictable offence by break and an offence of stealing.

On this occasion, he was sentenced to terms of detention to be served by way of a conditional release order. A conviction was recorded on a number of the offences. The learned Magistrate had a young person who was committing offences.

As I can see now from the material before me, the applicant had an unstable background. His mother was not caring for him. There was some dispute as to who his father was. He was placed with a cultural grandmother. Then, he was placed with another cultural grandmother. His carers who were the grandparents had passed away. And…

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 The Queen v ACD

Details

AGLC: The Queen v ACD [2012] QChC 13
Case: [2012] QChC 13
Decision Date: 22/03/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Children's Court of Queensland involves three separate applications to review sentences imposed on an individual, referred to as the applicant, who was 14 years old at the time of the first sentencing and subsequently turned 15. The sentences in question were handed down on 5 July 2010, 11 April 2011, and 10 October 2011. The applicant's history includes multiple appearances before the court for various offences, most of which resulted in probation or community service orders without the recording of a conviction. The primary legal issue addressed by the court was whether the sentences, particularly the recording of convictions and the length of detention orders, were appropriate under the Youth Justice Act. The court had to consider the nature of the offences, the applicant's age, previous criminal history, and his background, including his unstable upbringing and placement with various relatives.

The court's reasoning focused on the Youth Justice Act's principles, particularly the preference for rehabilitation over punitive measures for young offenders. The court noted that the applicant's offences, while serious, were committed in the context of his troubled background and limited prior criminal history. The court found that the recording of convictions on 5 July 2010 and 11 April 2011 was inappropriate given the applicant's age, limited criminal history, and the prima facie position under the Act that convictions should not be recorded against children. Furthermore, the court concluded that the detention order of nine months imposed on 10 October 2011 was excessive and not in line with the Act's directive that detention should be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. The court acknowledged the applicant's subsequent good behavior on conditional bail but maintained that the original detention order was too harsh.

As a result of the review, the court ordered that the convictions recorded on 5 July 2010 and 11 April 2011 be deleted, with no future convictions recorded. Additionally, the nine-month detention order imposed on 10 October 2011 was reduced to three months, which was to be suspended immediately, with the applicant to participate in a program directed by the Chief Executive for the next three months. The court also declared that the 94 days already served by the applicant be counted as time already served under the sentence.

Orders