The Queen v LJW

[2011] QChC 13

[2011] QChC 13

THE CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SHANAHAN, President

Indictment No 194 of 2011

THE QUEEN

v.

LJW

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/09/2011

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT:  This is an application for sentence review by the child in relation to sentences imposed in relation to three break and enter type matters.

On the 5th of May 2011, the applicant had surrendered to his bail because he was having difficulties meeting a curfew condition.  He had actually been kept in the watch-house overnight before appearing before the Magistrate.

At that stage, he had already pleaded guilty to two offences, and a Youth Justice conference had been ordered, which was to take place two weeks later.

The child's representative on this day indicated to the Magistrate that the child had instructed he would have difficulty meeting bail conditions, and as a result, requested the Magistrate to actually deal with the sentence matters on that day.  He requested the Magistrate to revoke the order for a Youth Justice conference.

Discussion then ensued as to the appropriate sentences to be imposed.  The child had only been 12 years of age at the time of the commission of these two particular offences, and had no previous Court offences.

At the end of the day, the child's representative indicated that a probation order was the appropriate way to deal with the matter.  He seems to have been persuaded to make that submission because he considered that there was a prospect that the child's bail would be revoked and he would be remanded in detention.

The Magistrate had indicated that he was loathe to follow such a course, considering the age of the child.  In the end, the Magistrate sentenced the child to six months' probation with no convictions being recorded.

Six days later, the child was again before a different Magistrate in relation to a further charge of entering premises and committing an offence.  He entered a plea to that charge, and was again sentenced to six months' probation on the basis that had all three matters been dealt with together, no different penalty would have been imposed.

That offence involved he and a number of other offenders in a planned break and enter, entering a bicycle shop and stealing a number of bicycles.  There was quite a quantity of property stolen, 14 bicycles, and an aggravating feature in relation to this child was the fact that he was on bail for the earlier matters when he committed this particular offence.  It seems to me the circumstances of that break and enter type matter are more serious than the earlier two.

The position is a vexed one.  The child is obviously of a very young age, and these are his first appearances before the Court.  The third offence of break and enter is a serious example of the matter, because of the planned nature of it, the large amount of property that was stolen and the fact that the child was on bail at the time for similar matters when he committed that offence.

Ordinarily, it would be unusual for a 12 or 13 year old child in relation to these sorts of matters to be placed on a community-based order as the first penalty to be imposed, but it seems to me there are additional factors here, including the position that was taken by the child's representatives on that first appearance.

It seems to me, considering all three offences, that a period of probation was open to the Magistrate, however, I am concerned that the period of time of six months was selected.  The Department's representative on the first hearing date indicated that three to six months was the appropriate length of probation, or probation period, and it seems to me that any sentence imposed on a child so young should be at the lowest point of the range that was applicable.  It seems to me a three month probation order was the appropriate way to deal with the matter.

I allow the review.  I amend the order of each Magistrate.  The probation period will now be three months' probation, and of course, no convictions are recorded.

-----