Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym) - [2024] QSC 122

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym) [2024] QSC 122

PARTIES:

WHEATON

(applicant)

v
JASON (A PSEUDONYM)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

6094 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2024

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

1. The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL – where the respondent is a child – where he has a lengthy criminal history including numerous offences of breaking and entering dwelling houses and unlawfully using motor vehicles – where he has been placed on probation on numerous occasions – where he was sentenced to four months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order – within a month of being sentenced to four months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order he was charged with further offences – the offences were 5 counts of burglary, 7 counts of attempted burglary, 1 count of unlawfully entering premises (a car), 1 count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and 1 charge of stealing petrol – where an Acting Magistrate sitting in the Childrens Court gave the respondent bail on conditions – where the applicant applies for the revocation of bail – whether the respondent is likely to endanger the public – whether bail should be revoked

Bail Act1980 (Qld), s 19B,

Youth Justice Act1992 (Qld), s 48, s 48AAA, s 48AA, Sch 1

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial RelationsCommission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA 47, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Filippa [2005] 1 Qd R 587; [2004] QSC 470, cited
Iordachev DJM [2023] QSC 134, cited
Re JTL [2021] QSC 211, considered

R v SCU [2017] QCA 198, followed

COUNSEL:

B Trenear for the applicant
A Davie for the respondent

T Huni appeared for the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs

SOLICITORS:

Ms Trenear was instructed directly by the Queensland Police Service
Skuse Graham Criminal Lawyers for the respondent

This is an application brought pursuant to s 19B of the Bail Act1980 (Qld) to revoke the bail of Jason[1] granted on 10 May 2024 in the Toowoomba Children’s Court.
[1]A pseudonym.
A review pursuant to s 19B of a decision to grant bail is a reconsideration de novo.[2] It is not an appeal and therefore the exercise of this Court’s discretion is not dependent upon the identification of error.[3]
[2]Director of Public Prosecutions v Filippa [2005] 1 Qd R 587.
[3]See Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial RelationsCommission (2000) 203 CLR 194 on the role of a court conducting an appeal by way of rehearing.
The relevant provisions of the Youth Justice Act1992 which concern the granting of bail to a child are ss 48, 48AAA and 48AA. I analysed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym) [2024] QSC 122
Case: [2024] QSC 122
Decision Date: 7 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym) involved a child respondent with a significant criminal history, including multiple offences of breaking and entering dwelling houses and unlawfully using motor vehicles. Despite being placed on probation on numerous occasions, within a month of being sentenced to four months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order, the respondent was charged with additional offences. These new charges included five counts of burglary, seven counts of attempted burglary, one count of unlawfully entering premises (a car), one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and one charge of stealing petrol. An Acting Magistrate sitting in the Children's Court initially granted the respondent bail subject to conditions. Subsequently, the applicant applied for the revocation of bail, arguing that the respondent was likely to endanger the public and that bail should be revoked.

The legal issues before the court centred on the determination of whether the respondent was likely to endanger the public and whether bail should be revoked in light of the new charges and the respondent's criminal history. The court had to balance the need to protect the public against the potential detriment to the respondent if bail were revoked. It also had to consider the principles applicable to bail decisions for children under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (Vic). The court had to assess whether the respondent's recent offending warranted a revocation of bail and whether the conditions of the existing bail were sufficient to ensure public safety.

The court, in dismissing the application, found that while the respondent's criminal history was extensive and the new charges were serious, there were no new factors that significantly altered the risk assessment made at the time of the original bail decision. The existing bail conditions were deemed adequate to protect the public and ensure the respondent's attendance at court. The court concluded that the conditions of bail, including electronic monitoring and strict curfew, were sufficient to mitigate any risk posed by the respondent. As such, the application for the revocation of bail was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Wheaton v Jason (a pseudonym) [2024] QSC 122
PARTIES:	WHEATON (applicant) v JASON (A PSEUDONYM) (respondent)
FILE NO:	6094 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 May 2024
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	1. The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL – where the respondent is a child – where he has a lengthy criminal history including numerous offences of breaking and entering dwelling houses and unlawfully using motor vehicles – where he has been placed on probation on numerous occasions – where he was sentenced to four months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order – within a month of being sentenced to four months detention to be served by way of a conditional release order he was charged with further offences – the offences were 5 counts of burglary, 7 counts of attempted burglary, 1 count of unlawfully entering premises (a car), 1 count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and 1 charge of stealing petrol – where an Acting Magistrate sitting in the Childrens Court gave the respondent bail on conditions – where the applicant applies for the revocation of bail – whether the respondent is likely to endanger the public – whether bail should be revoked Bail Act1980 (Qld), s 19B, Youth Justice Act1992 (Qld), s 48, s 48AAA, s 48AA, Sch 1 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial RelationsCommission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA 47, cited Director of Public Prosecutions v Filippa [2005] 1 Qd R 587; [2004] QSC 470, cited Iordachev DJM [2023] QSC 134, cited Re JTL [2021] QSC 211, considered R v SCU [2017] QCA 198, followed
COUNSEL:	B Trenear for the applicant A Davie for the respondent T Huni appeared for the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs
SOLICITORS:	Ms Trenear was instructed directly by the Queensland Police Service Skuse Graham Criminal Lawyers for the respondent