The Queen v HS
[2013] QChC 20
•3 MAY 2013
| AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ABN 72 110 028 825 T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274) F: 1300 739 037 |
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
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
JUDGE REID
THE QUEEN
v.
HS
BRISBANE
9.52 AM, FRIDAY, 3 MAY 2013
ORDER
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: In this matter there were a series of offences committed in September and October 2012. At the time the applicant was fourteen and a half years of age. The offences were generally offences of dishonesty at a relatively low level. There were offences of unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, unauthorised dealing with shop goods, wilful damage when the applicant smeared something on clothing at Myers causing damage to that clothing, said to be valued at $3705.85. It is not apparent to me what the actual loss to the store from that might have been and whether or not the brown foundation, which was put on the clothing, might have been able to be cleared up.
There were also offences of stealing of the 8th of October when school bags belonging to students at St Patrick’s College were taken. They included iPhones and Apple iTouch equipment which would have been of significant value. Other offences appear to have been of lesser importance.
The applicant was sentenced to nine months probation and the learned Magistrate determined to also record a conviction. The motivation for him doing so is a little unclear having regard to young age of the applicant. In the circumstances it seems to me on review that a conviction ought not to have been recorded and that approach is not disputed by the Crown.
I have little difficulty in ordering that the review be allowed ,that the conviction imposed by the learned Magistrate on the 21st of February 2013 be deleted and that no conviction be recorded in respect of any of the matters that were before the Court.
______________________
0
0
0