The Queen v LRTG

[2011] QChC 15

[2011] QChC 15

THE CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SHANAHAN, PRESIDENT

Indictment No 278 of 2011

THE QUEEN

v.

LRTG

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/09/2011

SENTENCE

THE PRESIDENT:  This is a sentence review by the child who has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to five counts of entering premises and committing an indictable offence by way of a break; two counts of wilful damage, and six counts of wilful damage by graffiti.  He was also dealt with on the 24th of August 2011 in relation to two other matters for which he was reprimanded. 

In relation to each of the offences that I have just listed he was sentenced to four months' detention.  A conviction was recorded although the record does not seem to indicate the magistrate considered that aspect of the case at all. 

A pre‑sentence report was before the Court at the time of the sentence.  The child was 16 years of age at the time and had some appearances before the Magistrates Court.  In fact on the 6th of April 2011 he had been dealt with for other matters and placed on a probation order.  These offences occurred about one month later in point of time.  They involve the child and others breaking into various premises and destroying property, and also spraying graffiti on property.  The amount of property damage involved in the matter was some $13,000. 

At the hearing before the magistrate the police prosecutor submitted that a range of sentence was open from conditional release to detention.  The magistrate does not seem to have considered the conditional release order as an option that was open to him. 

In considering the contents of the pre‑sentence report which disclosed some positive aspects in relation to the child, particularly in relation to work and ongoing education, there were some positive aspects to the child's life.  It seems to me the magistrate should have considered an option which saw the child remain in the community; however, under intensive supervision.  Whilst I am persuaded that detention was an appropriate sentence in the light of the serious nature of the offending and the breaches of supervised orders that they entailed, in my view a conditional release order was the appropriate sentence in this circumstance. 

I am also not persuaded that it was appropriate to record convictions against this child.  He has a relatively limited criminal history and it is certainly not apparent on the record that the magistrate turned his mind to that position.  It may be that it was simply recorded by the registry as convictions being recorded. 

I note in that regard in relation to two other matters that the magistrate dealt with on that day the child was simply reprimanded. 

In those circumstances, I don't propose to record convictions on any of these matters. 

I will allow the review.  I set aside the sentences imposed by the magistrate.  In substitution on each I order that the child be sentenced to three months' detention.  Those orders are concurrent.  I further order that he serve that period of detention by way of a conditional release order.  I understand the conditions of that have been explained to him and he consents to the making of that order. 

No convictions are recorded. 

‑‑‑‑‑