The Queen v THK

[2018] QChC 33

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 Executive Manager, Support Services, Queensland Courts.

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE SHANAHAN

Indictment No 225 of 2018

THE QUEEN

v.

THK

BRISBANE

11.10 AM, WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2018

SENTENCE REVIEW

RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT

Any Rulings that may be included in this transcript, may be extracted and subject to revision by the Presiding Judge.

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:   This is an application to extend time in relation to the filing of a sentence review and an application for sentence review.  The sentence was imposed on the 13^th of June 2018, and the application was filed on the 26^th of July 2018.  In considering whether to extend time, the considerations are the delay in the filing as well as an assessment of the merit.  The delay is only a matter of days, and it is not suggested the respondent has any disadvantage because of that.  On the 13^th of June 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of dishonesty offences.  There were four offences of entering premises and committing indictable offences, two offences of wilful damage and a stealing offence.

He was sentenced to six months probation and 35 hours community service as a combined order.  The applicant was aged 12 at the commission of one of those offences and 13 at the others.  It is plain that he had other matters before the Court because on the face of the record, to which that he had not pleaded guilty was placed before the sentencing magistrate by the Prosecutor.  That seems to have been taken into account, although I do not think it would have had any impact on the sentence that was imposed.  All offences are relatively minor, and, of course, the child was only 12 or 13 with no other appearances before the Court.

During the course of submissions, the applicant’s legal representative made submissions that perhaps the child was suffering from intellectual disability.  No further material was placed before the sentencing magistrate.  There is available now material of a confidential guidance report and, more particularly, a mental health and fitness for trial assessment report which was completed for the Caboolture Magistrates Court on the 7^th of June 2018.  That was plainly available to the Court, and it does not seem to have been placed before the sentencing magistrate.

It seems to me considering the circumstances of the offences, the age of the child and the intellectual disability he apparently suffers from that the sentence imposed was not required in the circumstances.  In that regard, I note that this was, in effect, his first appearance before the Courts.  I am thus of the view that it is appropriate to allow the applications.  I will allow the application to extend time.  Time is extended to the 26^th of July 2018.  I allow the sentence review.  My order is I discharge the probation order that was made on that day.  The child has already competed the community service order, and there is no practical reason why that order should be set aside.  Obviously, no convictions were recorded or are recorded.

MR LAW:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Are there any other orders needed in relation to that one?

MR LAW:   No, your Honour.

MR PATTY:   No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.

______________________