The Queen v PJ

[2013] QChC 22

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED

ABN 72 110 028 825

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274)      F:  1300 739 037
E: [email protected]        W:

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.

PJ  Appellant

BRISBANE

2.34 PM, MONDAY, 29 APRIL 2013

JUDGMENT

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:   The applicant in this matter pleaded guilty to 35 property and drug offences committed between the 3^rd of March and September 2012.  He was born the 1^st of December, 1995 and so was 16 at the time.  His relevant prior criminal history, in particular in October 2011 he was sentenced to nine months probation for a number of offences of dishonesty including entering premises and committing an indictable offence, entering with intent and stealing.  He was subject to that order for probation and another for six months probation imposed on the 16^th of November, 2011 at the time of some of this offending.  He has also served 127 days of pre-sentence custody at the time of this sentence in January this year.  The subject offences comprise two groups.  After serious offending he was in custody from the 30^th of March 2012 until the 16^th of May, and then after release committed further offences between the 9^th of August and the 17^th of September, 2012.  These later offences were in breach of conditions of bail imposed with respect to the earlier offences. 

The offending occurred during a time when the applicant was addicted to both marijuana and amphetamines.  He’d commenced marijuana use at age 12 and amphetamine use from age 14.  His parents separated in 2010 when he was 14.  He then lived for a time with both parents.  More importantly in 2011 the applicant’s father was shot with a shotgun, was given no details about that event, but it resulted in his father leaving Australia and living in the USA for a period of time.  The applicant reacted badly to the loss of his father’s presence in his life, although I do note he already was then a significant user as I said of both marijuana and amphetamines, so I think the effect of his father’s absence has perhaps been overstated by him as a cause of his decent into criminal conduct.  One suspects the seeds of his involvement in that life were sown significantly earlier.  No doubt, as a result of his drug addiction and perhaps angry and defiant attitude he began associating with an older and negative peer group.  He was involved in the theft of property and motor vehicles to enable him to dishonestly obtain the means to purchase the drugs that he was then using daily. 

Fortunately, the court report tended before the sentencing magistrates suggests that the four months imprisonment in two periods, the latter up until the 6^th of December, 2012 appears to have had a significantly positive effect.  At page five of the report the author says that the applicant engaged in counselling with the mental health, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs service and other educational activities while in prison.  He was then placed on conditional bail from early December 2012 without further offending to date.  He appears to have complied with conditions of his bail, at least significant to the [indistinct], and he and his mother reported improved relationships and of his ceasing association with the previous negative peer group.  The learned magistrate questioned the applicant about his time in prison consistent with the contents of the pre-sentence report.  The applicant informed the learned magistrate that whilst detention was “not fun” it had “helped me out” and that he was then drug free and doing his conditional bail program.  The learned magistrate, whilst recognising the 127 days of pre-sentence custody imposed a sentence of 12 months probation and 200 hours of community service.  No conviction was recorded.  The applicant does not appeal against the order for probation but contends that 200 hours

of community service was excessive and suggested appropriate orders for 50 hours.  The DPP contends that the sentence was appropriate having regard to the number and seriousness of his offending, his prior history, and the fact that there were two series of offences; the first in breach of probation and the latter in breach of his bail undertaking.  In the alternative the DPP contends that a lesser number of hours, 100 to 150 would be appropriate.  It is important to note that a sentence review under the Youth Justices Act is a re-hearing on the merits and it is not necessary to show error; see 122(1) of the Youth Justices Act.

In my view the significant period of pre-sentence detention equivalent, by my calculations, to a head sentence of at least six months imprisonment assuming 70 per cent was served, and eight months if only 50 per cent had been ordered because of special circumstances is a vitally important factor to be taken into account when considering what sentence to impose by way of punishment.  And so too is the defendant’s apparent good response to his second period of detention on late 2012.  The strength of the appellant’s argument would of course have been significantly strengthened if he now engaged in employment or training and education of some sort.  But in my view, to impose the maximum of 200 hours community service in addition to the pre-sentence custody to which I have referred, and of course probation is a little more that what is required, in my view.  Despite the severity of the offending, which largely involved entering premises or motor vehicles and taking goods in order to be sold and finance his drug addiction, I would allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the requirement for community service to 100 hours of which I am informed 30 has already been performed.  I urge the applicant to attempt to perform the remaining hours as soon as possible to enable him to then be in a position to perform any work he might obtain without impediment.  In view of the reduction of hours required to be performed by way of community service, I would order that such be completed within nine months of original sentence, that is by the 16^th of October, 2013.  The appeal is allowed to that extent.

____________________