The Queen v PMS

[2011] QChC 30

[2011] QChC 30

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SAMIOS

THE QUEEN

v.

PMS

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/12/2011

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application to review a sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate at Stanthorpe on the 17th October 2011.  The applicant on that occasion was sentenced by the learned Magistrate for 23 offences that occurred between the 28th July 2011 and the 6th August 2011.  The applicant was sentenced to a period of 10 months' detention with release after serving 70 per cent and convictions were recorded.

The offences are self-explanatory.  There were seven unlawful entries of a motor vehicle at night in company, two entry of premises and commit an indictable offence by break, one enter premises and commit an indictable offence, one enter premises with intent, one attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two unlawful uses of a motor vehicle, three stealings, three wilful damages and two wilful damage property which was part of a school or education centre and one enter dwelling with intent to break and damage property.

At the time of committing these offences, the applicant was on a 2 year supervised order for an offence he committed in New South Wales.  That was for a robbery which was quite serious in that it was alleged he held a broken bottle against the throat of the complainant.  He was sentenced to 4 months' detention for that offence in New South Wales and, as I said, released on the 2 year supervised order.  I do not have the date when that offence occurred but it must have been earlier in the year of 2011.

The applicant also had two entries in his Queensland criminal history.  He had received a 6 month good behaviour order with respect to two offences of wilful damage and a 6 month good behaviour order in respect of a public nuisance charge.

He is now 17 years of age and was 16 at the time these offences were committed.  He had not spent any time in presentence detention but has, pursuant to the learned Magistrate's order, been in custody in detention now for about 60 days.

On sentencing, the learned Magistrate was faced with the circumstances that the applicant was not willing to perform probation or community service or be the subject of a conditional release order.  He had not shown a good attitude except he had pleaded guilty and co-operated with the administration of justice.

The presentence report also indicated that he had an adverse attitude to authority and had been in an unstructured and poor use of time situation leading to opportunistic offending and alignment with offending peers.  His mother was unable to control him.

He committed the subject offences that the learned Magistrate was dealing with in breach of his good behaviour bonds.  Faced with these circumstances there is no doubt, in my mind, that the learned Magistrate was correct to impose detention.  It was the last resort with this applicant.  It was the only appropriate sentence.

While I would like to support the learned Magistrate's sentence of 10 months, I've come to the view that as a detention order should be imposed only for the shortest appropriate period that in this case a 6 months' detention was the shortest appropriate period.

I do not agree with the submissions that have been made that I order the applicant serve 50 per cent of the period of detention.  In my view, there were no special circumstances to warrant ordering that he serve 50 per cent of the detention.

Therefore, I do review the sentence and in lieu of the 10 months' detention imposed by the learned Magistrate, I impose 6 months' detention.  Otherwise, I confirm the applicant is to perform 70 per cent of his detention before release, which is what the learned Magistrate ordered.

However, there is the remaining issue of the recording of a conviction.  While it seems all hope has been lost, in the circumstances I consider it still must be accepted that the applicant may rehabilitate himself because of his youth.  He may mature and through natural progression change his ways.

Otherwise, as the learned Magistrate told him, he will just be sent to adult prison to serve sentences for other offending if he commits other offending.  Therefore, in the circumstances, I delete the recording of the conviction in relation to the offences.

Anything else?

MS NELSON:  No, thank you, your Honour.

MS SCHOOTH:  No, thank you, your Honour.

-----