The Queen v PN
[2013] QChC 25
•2 MAY 2013
[2013] QChC 25
CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND
REID DCJ
Indictment No TBA
THE QUEEN
v.
PN
BRISBANE
9.47 AM, THURSDAY, 2 MAY 2013
DAY 1
RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT
HIS HONOUR: Mr Law.
MR D. LAW: Morning, your Honour. If it please the court, my name is Law. Initial D. From Legal Aid Queensland. I appear for the applicant.
HIS HONOUR: All right.
MR Y. MATSUYAMA: For the record, your Honour, Matsuyama M-a-t-s-u-y-a-m-a. Initial Y. Legal officer, appearing for the respondent.
HIS HONOUR: Okay, Mr Law.
MR LAW: Thank you, your Honour. I read an application for sentence to be filed on 31st of January 2013. I also read an affidavit under my hand that was filed on the 31st of January.
HIS HONOUR: So what was the date of the application?
MR LAW: 31st of January 2013.
HIS HONOUR: Right.
MR LAW: I also read an affidavit under my hand filed on the 31st of January 2013. I read a further affidavit that was filed on the 1st of May 2013.
HIS HONOUR: Of yours?
MR LAW: Yes, under my hand. And I read my written submissions that were also filed on the 1st of May 2013. And I emailed that material to your Associate yesterday, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I’ve got it all.
MR LAW: Thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Matsuyama.
MR MATSUYAMA: Yes, your Honour. I read the written submissions of the respondent that was filed yesterday on the 1st of May, under my hand. I also have emailed that through to your Associate yesterday, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks very much. And I’ve got those. Thank you, both of them for – I mean – it seemed to me, Mr Matsuyama, that the offence of the 23rd of January – dealt with of the 23rd of January, of going into Coles and stealing two cans of deodorant, was relatively trivial. In fact you might describe it as a very minor offence, and it seems both from a perusal of her extensive criminal history, and more
particularly from the material that Mr Law has filed, that there appears to have been significant attempts at rehabilitation, most particularly since January, but some prior to that. I say that about her criminal history because – just have a look at it – there’s numerous offences in 2009 and 2010 and only one offence in 2011.
There’s a number again in 2012, but since the 25th of September 2012 the only offence, that I could see, was the deodorant theft from Coles on the 5th of January 2013. That’s a period of six or seven months. So over the last two and a half years her offending has been significantly less, and her personal circumstances are such that one isn’t surprised at her offending. And it seems that through a combination factors, quite probably, that her behaviour is significantly ameliorating and certainly the position adopted by the person from Youth Justice in Darwin, to whom Mr Law spoke, Zack Murphy seems to suggest that her condition – her behaviour ameliorated very significantly and she now has some significant support. In the circumstances, I’m inclined to think that – to have fully implemented the three month sentence of 2012, which had been suspended on the imposition of the conditional release in December 2012 is harsher than is necessary. I call on you, rather than Mr Law, because as Mr Law says, I’ve read his submissions, and I think there’s some truth in it. The other thing is it’s not a case of me having – and it mightn’t have been in this one, it was in – yes, in your submissions you say that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was not outside the sound sentencing discretion. It’s not an appeal though, so I don’t have to show it’s outside the sound sentencing discretion.
MR LAW: No, your Honour, and it’s not the case that it was manifestly excessive or a need to show the fact that it was manifestly excessive.
HIS HONOUR: No.
MR LAW: Or if there was an error out of the ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: I just sentence her afresh, and I seek an extension of the conditional release order, rather than activating the three months period of imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Particularly, when you have a look at – I mean I thought that even before reading Mr Law’s submissions largely and when you read them I think it cries out for supervision rather than imprisonment.
MR LAW: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Law, the order that I need to make then is just that the review be allowed.
MR LAW: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: And the conditional release order made on the 12th of December 2012, and I think be extended; is it?
MR LAW: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Be extended by a further period of one month.
MR LAW: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: That means it’s actually now expired, doesn’t it?
MR MATSUYAMA: It does, your Honour, so it would be to extend the order by one month from today’s date.
HIS HONOUR: From today, righto. I’ll order that the conditional release order made on the 12th of December 2012 be extended by a period of one month from today.
MR LAW: And just for completeness, your Honour, if your Honour could just say for the record that the order of the Magistrate on the 23rd January is discharged.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. The order of the Magistrates Court at Mt Isa on 23rd January 2013 is discharged.
MR LAW: Thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks again both for your submissions in that one.
ADJOURNED [9.54 am]
0
0
0