The Queen v JRI

[2013] QChC 32

[2013] QChC 32

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE DEVEREAUX SC

THE QUEEN

v.

JRI

BRISBANE

10.08 AM, WEDNESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:   The applicant child was born on the 1^st of January 1997.  It was his 16^th birthday on the 1^st of January of this year when he committed two offences, one of wilful damage and one of obstructing police.  The wilful damage occurred in the context of about 60 other people creating a disturbance in Lardil Street in the Wellesley Islands.  He jumped on top of a police car and then jumped on the bonnet.  He later tried to smash the window of the car by throwing a full water bottle at it.  $1,500 of damage was caused.  He failed to appear in court having been bailed.  He failed to appear on the 6^th of March.  He was arrested on a warrant and was sentenced on 23 July this year. 

The learned magistrate, after hearing some submissions from a solicitor and some information from another person, made a six months probation order.  Mr Law, who appears on the review, submits that that’s an excessive order and that the appropriate order was one of a good behaviour bond, taking into account that the applicant had just turned 16, has no criminal history and hasn’t offended since.  Also, I’ve recently been told his bail conditions were somewhat restrictive.  But it’s unfortunate that the information isn’t sufficient really to give much credit for performance on bail.  All one knows is the applicant didn’t appear when he was supposed to and according to what the solicitor told the magistrate at the time of the court proceeding, the applicant was living with his mother.  His bail required him to live with an aunty. 

The offence itself might have drawn just a good behaviour bond. But given some of the things that the magistrate was told, it was within a sound exercise of discretion to make a probation order. I think the probation order is appropriate because the wilful damage charge itself is mildly serious and it’s compounded by the failure to appear. In those circumstances, it’s responsible I think to make a probation order. But as I just pointed out, it’s now two months since the order was made. That order has been in abeyance pending the review and I think it’s sufficient to make it a four months order. So the order is under section 123 of the Youth Justice Act, that I vary the order of the Childrens Court Magistrate only by deleting six and inserting four in the period of probation. 

______________________