The Queen v OC
[2013] QChC 21
•29 APRIL 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
JUDGE REID
Indictment No TBA
THE QUEEN
v.
OC
BRISBANE
11.11 AM, MONDAY, 29 APRIL 2013
SENTENCE
RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT
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, the applicant seeks review of a sentence imposed on the 15th of February 2013 of three months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order. Convictions were not recorded. He had, on that day, pleaded guilty to offences of entering premises and committing an indictable offence, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, committing public nuisance, two of wilful damage, two of obstructing a police officer, one of serious assault of a police officer, three of stealing, one of failing to comply with an order that he remove himself from South Bank, and one of possession of a knife. The offences were, of course, serious, in particular, the assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed offence, and a number of offences of dishonesty.
It’s clear that the magistrate considered that the applicant’s personal circumstances required a degree of supervision and, for that reason, made the conditional release order that I’ve referred to. In my opinion, and it is one that is fortified by the submissions of both Mr Law, who appeared for the defendant, and Mr Dickson, who appeared for the department, the desire to rehabilitate the complainant is, however, better met by the more prolonged, though admittedly less intensive, requirements of a probation order. A report of Ian Nussey, a psychologist, details OC’s upbringing and the developmental issues he faces. It appears from the material that the appellant’s personal circumstances throughout his life have been appallingly extreme.
He was subject to drug abuse in utero and was rejected by his mother when he was 13 months old. He then remained in the care of his father until the age of 4, but he was largely neglected. At that stage, his father re-partnered to a woman who physically abused him. Subsequently, when he was about five years of age, his father developed schizophrenia. He re-partnered three years later, but his father’s new partner continued to abuse the applicant both physically and emotionally. At one stage, he was forced to live in a shed and was punished by the withholding of food. Not surprising, he has developed significant problems with dyslexia , has central auditory processing problems and has developed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
In 2010, when his father and grandmother were unable to care for him, he was placed in care. At that stage, he would have been 12 years of age. The following year, he was violently and sexually assaulted in his care placement by other inmate. He. as appears from the stealing offences, has developed an addiction to the immolation of glue.
The circumstances of his upbringing and of the offending, in my view, demand a significant period of probation.
...
I’ll order probation for a period of 12 months on the usual conditions.
...
______________________
0
0
0