The Queen v Jal

[2012] QChC 9

[2012] QChC 9

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SAMIOS

THE QUEEN

v.

JAL

BRISBANE

..DATE 20/03/2012

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application to review a sentence imposed upon the applicant by the learned Magistrate at the Southport Childrens Court on the 2nd of December 2011.

Now, on that date the applicant was sentenced to 12 months probation for the offence of stealing and an indefinite referral to a youth justice conference for a stealing offence and two unauthorised dealing with shop goods and a trespass offence. 

The term of probation was the maximum allowed under The Youth Justice Act and the review seeks the revocation of the probation order and contends that a youth justice conference with an indefinite referral ought also to have been imposed for the one stealing offence. 

The applicant was 14 years of age when she appeared before the learned Magistrate.  The fact behind the offending that on the 30th of May 2011 the applicant stole two computer games from David Jones at Robina; only one game was recovered.  This was the stealing offence to which the 12 months probation was applied.  No conviction was recorded.  On the 9th of July 2011 the applicant entered a cool room at the Nerang Park Poultry where she removed a wallet from a bag.  She was confronted and fled the scene.  She dropped the wallet, and the contents and the wallet were recovered.  She was charged with stealing and trespass in relation to that incident.

Then on the 27th of August 2011 she stole a T-Shirt from Citybeach and some soap from Lush.  The total value of both items was $48.  Both items were returned to the stores in question.  The applicant made full admissions to both offences.

Clearly the learned Magistrate was concerned that the applicant have some ongoing supervision.  I should say there's - also complained about that on this review that the learned Magistrate did not have the consent of the applicant to make a probation order, nor that he explained the purpose and effect and the consequences of breaching the probation order to the applicant.

Nevertheless, the applicant as I said was 14 years of age and engaged in high school; she had the support of her mother at the time of sentence and had not committed an offence since the previous August, a period of some three months, that is, she had a limited criminal history having committed a stealing offence on the 1st of July 2009.  That had been also referred to a youth justice conference. 

As the applicant had a limited criminal history and pleaded guilty to all offences and the loss to the community was not significant, the contention is that the youth justice conference should have been applied to all matters before the learned Magistrate. 

I am not attracted to the proposition that the Magistrate did not ask if the child was willing to comply with the probation order.  The applicant's legal representative indicated her willingness.  I am also not attracted to the proposition that the learned Magistrate did not explain the purpose and effect of the order and the consequences of breach of it.  The learned Magistrate could have directed the applicant's legal advisors to provide the explanation.

It just seems to me the learned Magistrate was concerned that the applicant was showing tendencies towards offending.  When one reads the QP9 about the stealing from David Jones, it shows quite some determination on the part of the applicant.  She entered the store, located the games, removed the games from their cases, concealed the empty cases under some clothing on shelves and then exited the store, not paying for the games.  When confronted later by the police she did voluntarily come to the station but declined to be interviewed on legal advice.  One of the games was returned but the other one was unable to be located. 

The learned Magistrate then had an applicant who entered the poultry business, removing a wallet and then being confronted and then also had the applicant again stealing from Citybeach a T-shirt and some soap from Lush.  I think he was correct when he thought that there should be some supervision imposed on the applicant, even if it happens to be the maximum.  I do not think this is a case that necessarily calls for a youth justice conference with respect to all offences.  The learned Magistrate was trying to find a way to have the applicant mend her ways.

In all the circumstances I've come to the view that the order made by the learned Magistrate on the 2nd of December 2011 in this case should be confirmed and I also direct the applicant's legal representatives explain the purpose and effect of the order and the consequences that may follow if the applicant fails to comply with the order.

-----