WLT v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2025] QChC 12

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

WLT v Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] QChC 12

PARTIES:

WLT

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(respondent)

FILE NO:

CCJ194/25

DIVISION:

Childrens Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Review Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Townsville Childrens Court

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 September 2025

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Application for sentence review granted.

2.   Set aside all sentences imposed at the Townsville Childrens Court on 19 June 2025.

3.   Substitute an order that the applicant be placed on probation for a period of nine months in respect of all offences for which the applicant was sentenced at the Townsville Childrens Court on 19 June 2025.

4.   Convictions are not recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING JUVENILES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was sentenced to various sentences at the Childrens Court at Townsville including a nine-month detention in respect of the offence of attempt to enter dwelling with intent by break, at night, in company – where the applicant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances – whether the sentencing magistrate fell into error by concluding that an attempted offence, other than those enumerated in s.175A(1) was a significant offence under s.175A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 419

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s118, s122, s 150, s 175A

Making Queensland Safer Act 2024 (Qld) Part 4

Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Act 2025 (Qld)

CASES:

ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38

R v CDV [2025] QCA 163

HZK v Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] QChC 11

Queensland Police Service v Terare [2014] QCA 260

R v TC [2025] QChC 8

COUNSEL:

L Millar (sol) for the applicant

S De Geest (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

1. This is an application for sentence review filed 5 August 2025 in respect of the following offences:-

Date of Offence	Place of Offence	Offence
20/12/2024	Townsville City	Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking.
17/01/2025	Garbutt	Breach of bail condition
16/01/2025	Garbutt	Breach of bail condition
24/02/2025	Garbutt	Breach of bail condition
13/04/2025	Aitkenvale	Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels - use
13/04/2025	Aitkenvale	Stealing
13/04/2025	Aitkenvale	Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence, never held a licence
14/04/2025	Aitkenvale	Stealing
14/04/2025	Aitkenvale	Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence, never held a licence
16/04/2025	Garbutt	Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessel – used on the night
16/04/2025	Garbutt	Stealing
17/04/2025	Wulguru	Attempt to enter dwelling with intent by break at night in company
17/04/2025	Wulguru	Enter premises and commit indictable offence
17/04/2025	Wulguru	Breach of bail condition
16/04/2025	Garbutt	Breach of bail condition
14/04/2025	Garbutt	Breach of bail condition
14/04/2025	West End	Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels - use
14/04/2025	West End	Attempted stealing
14/04/2025	West End	Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence, never held a licence.
31/10/2024	Garbutt	Going armed so as to cause fear
23/10/2024	Garbutt	Attempted enter premises with intent to commit indictable offence
15/10/2024	Garbutt	Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels - use
24/11/2024	Vincent	Unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels - use

1. The applicant was relevantly sentenced to the following:

   1.   Reprimand.

   2.   One month detention, immediately suspended via a conditional release order (six months’ program), concurrent.

   3.   Nine months’ detention, immediately suspended via a conditional release order (six months’ program period), concurrent.

2. The applicant also filed an application to extend time for sentence review on 5 August 2025 in respect of the same offences.  The application for sentence review is some 19 days outside the relevant 28-day time period.[1]  The applicant identifies the delay arising from a series of steps, including a period in excess of three weeks before signed instructions and a signed Legal Aid application form were received from the applicant, with further delays from inhouse conflict checking and merit assessment before the application was filed on 5 August 2025.[2] The application for extension of time is not opposed,[3] and accordingly the application to extend time for sentence review is granted.

   [1]Youth Justice Act s.119(2).

   [2]Exhibit 1 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the applicant child [3].

   [3]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [1].

   Grounds

3. The application for sentence review identified a single ground as follows:

   1.   In all the circumstances of the matter the sentence was excessive.

   The law

4. I refer to and adopt the summary of the law that I set out in ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38, [3]-[8]. This summary of the relevant law is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v CDV [2025] QCA 163 per Muir J (with whom Bond and Boddice JJA agreed) at [42]-[47].

   The offences

5. The offences have been summarised by the applicant as follows:[4]

   “Across 27 May 2025 and 19 June 2025, the applicant entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:

   [4]Exhibit 1 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant child [11].

#	Date	Offence	Facts
(a)	15/10/2024	Unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessels – use.	On 15 October 2024, in the middle of the night at the long‑term car park in the airport, a car was stolen.  It was a Toyota Kluger.  A photograph taken by a witness captured WLT getting out of that vehicle in Garbutt.  At the time of WLT’s arrest, he was wearing the same earring as depicted in the photograph taken by the witness.
(b)	23/10/2024	Attempt to enter premises with intent to commit indictable offence.	On 23 October 2024, WLT and other children were trying to pull the front door of the IGA, Garbutt open, which was closed.  The door got damaged.  One of the children gained entry and got inside.  CCTV captured WLT grabbing the door handle, pulling on the door and bending the bottom of the door open.
(c)	31/10/2024	Going armed so as to cause fear.	On 31 October 2024, WLT was at Rebel Sport with other children.  They were running around the store, and all had what appeared to be firearms.  Rebel Sport went into lockdown.  Police were called.  Police located WLT nearby and confirmed that the guns were not real, but made of plastic and had the appearance of a small handgun.
(d)	24/11/2024	Unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel - use	On 24 November 2024, a red Toyota Hilux was stolen from a unit.  A witness saw WLT getting out of that vehicle later the same day.
(e)	20/12/2024	Failure to appear	On 20 December 2024, WLT failed to appear in the Townsville Childrens Court.
(f)	16/01/2025, 17/01/2025 and 24/02/2025	3 x breach of bail condition	WLT entered into a bail undertaking on 25 November 2024 at the Townsville Childrens Court with a curfew condition.  He was required to be at home 24 hours a day, unless he was with his mother or a responsible adult, and with prior notice being provided by a text to the Youth Bail Supervisor, or with a person approved by Youth Justice or TAIHS.  WLT breached this condition of his bail undertaking.  He breached the condition by being outside of his home on three occasions on the dates charged.
(g)	13/04/2025 - 14/04/2025	Unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel – use	On 13 April 2025 WLT was seen exiting a vehicle at a 7‑Eleven, which was stolen two days prior as a result of a break-in at someone’s house.   WLT was seen exiting the driver’s seat and obtaining a quantity of fuel.   The vehicle was later recovered, and a forensic examination was conducted on the vehicle.  Police located multiple latent fingerprints – one of which was identified as belonging to WLT.
		2 x driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence	On 13 April 2025 and twice on 14 April 2025, WLT drove a motor vehicle.  WLT was not the holder of a current Queensland driver’s licence nor has he ever been.
		2 x stealing	On 13 April 2025 WLT stole $46.40 worth of fuel from 7‑Eleven, Aitkenvale. On 14 April 2025 WLT stole $14.33 worth of fuel from Coles Express, Aitkenvale.
Attempted stealing	On 14 April 2025 WLT attempted to steal a quantity of fuel from Caltex, West End.
(h)	14/04/2025	Unlawful use of a motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel – use	On 14 April 2025 WLT was depicted on CCTV exiting the driver’s seat of a Mitsubishi Pajero which was stolen on 13 April 2025
(i)	16/04/2025	Stealing	On 16 April 2025 WLT stole $36.08 worth of fuel from Reddy Express, Garbutt.
(j)	16/04/2025	Unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel – use	On 16 April 2025 WLT was depicted on CCTV exiting a silver Toyota Land Cruiser which was stolen from a residence on 15 April 2025
(k)	14/04/2025, 16/04/2025 - 17/04/2025	3 x breach of bail conditions	WLT entered into a bail undertaking on 25 November 2024 and on 17 March 2025 at the Townsville Childrens Court with a curfew condition.  He was required to be at home 24 hours a day, unless he was with his mother or a responsible adult, and with prior notice being provided by a text to the Youth Bail Supervisor, or with a person approved by Youth Justice or TAIHS.  WLT breached this condition of his bail undertaking.  He breached the condition by being outside of his home on three occasions on the dates charged.
(l)	17/04/2025	Attempt to enter dwelling with intent by break at night in company.	On 17 April 2025 WLT was identified on CCTV as being one of three male offenders who had gained entry to a dwelling.  The male offenders crushed the victim’s front doorknob and broke the lock.  The offenders attempted to enter the victim’s backyard however were disturbed by the victim’s dog.
(m)	17/04/2025	Enter premises and commit indictable offence	On 17 April 2025 WLT was identified on CCTV as being one of three male offenders who entered the victim’s white Mitsubishi Outlander bearing Queensland registration [redacted] and stole approximately $100 of cash, a necklace and charms.  WLT was captured on further CCTV footage on the same date wearing the same tracksuit pants.”

1. The applicant’s outline summarises his antecedents as follows:

   “[12]The applicant came before the court with moderate criminal history.  He had received a probation order in October 2023 which he did ‘really well’ on.

   [13]The applicant’s lawyer indicated that he has shown in the past that he can behave himself, given that he was sentenced in October 2023, received a probation order, and was only back before the courts in early 2024 for some minor matters.

   [14]As to the applicant’s broader antecedents, his lawyer submitted that:

   (a)WLT was the sixth of eight children between [his father] and [his mother];

   (b)WLT’s home life was not the best and he came to the attention of Child Safety in 2011 with concerns surrounding domestic violence, parental alcohol misuse, substance misuse, inadequate supervision and physical discipline;

   (c)WLT has an acquired brain injury, which arose out of a car crash where he was ejected out of a car when he was a 11 years of age.

   [15]The pre-sentence report, which was before the court at sentence, further outlines the applicant’s antecedents being:

   (a)WLT was subject to child protection orders from March 2011 to March 2012.

   (b)In July 2019, WLT was removed from his mother’s care and placed on interim custody orders, due to concerns in relation to inadequate supervision.  WLT remained on these orders until February 2023.

   (c)WLT attended a Flexible Learning Centre and his attendance was poor.

   (d)WLT spent his time smoking cannabis with his peers, who are known to Youth Justice.

   (e)WLT was also exposed to the criminal offending of his siblings.

   (f)Due to his acquired brain injury, WLT feels inferior to other peers his age.

   (g)WLT identifies as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.”[5]

   [5]Exhibit 1 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant child [12]-[15].

2. The applicant summarises the sentence proceedings as follows:

   “[16]The prosecutor submitted that the magistrate could impose a period of detention with respect to the matters that were deemed ‘significant offences’ under s.175A of the Youth Justice Act.  The prosecutor submitted that the magistrate could take a global approach by imposing detention for those matters, then reprimand the applicant in respect of the other significant offences which occurred before the amendment date.

   [17]The prosecutor further submitted that due to the applicant being involved in incidents at Brisbane Youth Detention Centre, including physical altercations, self-harm and suicidal ideations, that when imposing a detention order, a supervised release order ultimately be imposed.

   [18]The applicant’s lawyer conceded that a period of detention is within range, in light of ‘the new changes’.  [The applicant’s lawyer] sought that the learned magistrate take into account the 58 days that the applicant had already served in detention and make a conditional release order at the date of sentence.  He further submitted that the applicant be placed on a conditional release order for a period of six months.

   [19]After hearing submissions, the learned magistrate concluded that the offences were serious enough to warrant detention.

   [20]The learned magistrate made brief sentencing remarks which [the applicant submits] did not refer to the competing factors on sentence … in any meaningful detail.  Her Honour then noted that there was a total of five ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’ offences.  The learned magistrate ultimately imposed a head sentence of nine months’ detention.

   [21]In particular, the learned magistrate imposed the following detention orders:

   (a)Nine months’ detention for each of the following offences:

   (i)      unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessels – use on 13/04/2025;

   (ii)     unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessels – use in the night on 16/04/2025;

   (iii)     attempt to enter dwelling with intent by break at night in company on 17/04/2025;

   (iv)     unlawful use of motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel – use on 14/04/2025.

   (b)One month detention for each of the following offences:

   (v)     stealing on 13/04/2025;

   (vi)     stealing on 14/04/2025;

   (vii)    stealing on 16/04/2025;

   (viii)   enter premises and commit indictable offence on 17/04/2025;

   (ix)     attempted stealing on 14/04/2025.”

3. The respondent notes that during the course of submissions, the applicant child’s legal representatives indicated that they did not oppose the prosecutor’s submission in relation to nine months’ detention but submitted it should be served by way of a conditional release order for a period of six months.[6]

   [6]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [14].

4. The respondent also notes that in sentencing, the learned magistrate took into account:[7]

   (a)the applicant’s plea of guilty;

   (b)the applicant’s age, noting he was getting old now, “16 years, eight months” (however, the learned magistrate balanced this against the applicant’s acquired brain injury);

   (c)the lack of criminal history; and

   (d)factors outlined in the pre-sentence report.

   [7]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [15].

5. In particular, the respondent noted that the learned magistrate concluded that nine months’ detention was an appropriate sentence taking into account:

   (a)the impact upon the victim;

   (b)the Youth Justice penalty; and

   (c)the increased maximum penalty[8]

   [8]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [16].

6. The respondent notes further that in respect of the unlawful use of a motor vehicle and attempt to enter premises offences, the learned magistrate identified that pursuant to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (“YJA”), s.150(1):

   (a)     detention was not a sentence of last resort; and,

   (b)the magistrate could not have regard to any principle that a sentence that allows the child to stay in the community is preferable.[9]

   [9]Exhibit 3 – Outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent [17].

   Manifest excess

7. As the applicant identifies, at the commencement of the hearing, the learned magistrate addressed the applicant directly and stated that “on 13 December last year the laws changed, and we have Adult Time for Adult Crime”.[10]

   [10]Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Lana Millar affirmed 8 September 2025, Exhibit LTM1, T2, ll 25-26.

8. The learned magistrate was, of course, referring to the increase in maximum penalties applying to the offences designated as a significant offence in YJA s.175A, which raised the maximum penalty that could be imposed by a magistrate in respect to a significant offence to a period of three years’ detention (and a maximum of three years’ probation).

9. Relevantly, however, one of the offences for which the learned magistrate imposed the nine-month detention order was an offence of attempt to enter dwelling with intent by break at night in company on 17/04/2025.

10. As I held in HZK v Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] QChC 11 at [19], although the substantive offence of enter dwelling with intent by break at night in company (pursuant to Criminal Code s.419) is a significant offence,[11] an attempt to commit any of the offences in s.175A is not subject to s.175A(2).[12]  Error having been demonstrated,[13] it is necessary to grant the application for sentence review and consider afresh the penalty which ought to be imposed.

    [11]YJA s.175A(1)(2b)

    [12]It should be noted that the offences of attempt to murder (Criminal Code s.306) and attempt to commit rape (Criminal Code s.350) are contained in s.175A(1).

    [13]It is unnecessary to demonstrate error to succeed on an application for sentence review – see ERG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 38, [7].

11. Consequently, there were only four offences subject to the provisions of YJA s.175A, and the relevant principles that apply, namely that detention was no longer a sentence of last resort, and that the court must have primary regard to any impact of the offence on a victim.[14]

    [14]YJA s.150(1)&(2).

12. The applicant submits (correctly in my view) that although an increase in maximum penalty must be taken into account in sentencing, it does not automatically follow that all offences committed after the commencement of such an increased penalty would necessarily attract a higher sentence.  As McMurdo P stated in Queensland Police Service v Terare [2014] QCA 260, [40]:

    “Whilst increased sentences can be expected with the increased maximum penalty, the sentence imposed will turn on the facts of each particular case.”

13. The applicant submits that the learned magistrate appears to have placed excessive weight upon the increased maximum penalties and cites the following comments made by the learned magistrate during her sentencing remarks:-

    “And what the law now says is that you can get in this court up to three years’ detention, up to three years’ probation.  So before December, the law used to be about focusing on getting you to change, that detention was a last resort and for the least amount of time, that community – based options were better.  All of that’s gone now.  Now the court has to have its focus on the impact of these crimes on victims, which – even though I don’t have victim impact statements here – I think the court can act upon the basis that these sorts of offences caused not only damage – people lose their property – but it causes them trauma and stress.”[15]

    [15]Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Lana Millar affirmed 8 September 2025, Exhibit LTM-2, T1-2, ll 25-32.

    Imbalance of competing considerations

1. It is uncontroversial that a court sentencing a juvenile for an offence must proceed pursuant to Part 7, Div 1 of the Youth Justice Act, despite any other Act or law.[16]

   [16]YJA s.149(1), and the sentencing principles are contained in YJA s.150.

2. Although the YJA has been amended by the Making Queensland Safer Act 2024 (Part 4) and the Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Act 2025 (Part 2), it is still necessary in respect of any sentence involving a juvenile to balance all of the relevant considerations.

3. It is clear, as YJA s.150(1) now provides, that a court must not have regard to any principle that a detention order should only be imposed as a last resort, or any principle that a sentence that allows the child to stay in the community is preferable, and is obliged when sentencing a child for an offence to have primary regard to any impact of the offence on a victim.[17] Regardless, the court remains obliged to have regard to the matters set out in YJA s.150(3) and (where relevant) those matters are covered by s.150(4)-(9).

   [17]YJA s.150(2).

4. In R v TC [2025] QChC 8, [34] Richards DCJ stated:

   “The magistrate placed heavy reliance on the principle that detention was no longer a sentence of last resort and therefore adults were in a better position than children under the new laws.  That is an incorrect analysis of the Act; the Youth Justice principles still rely heavily on rehabilitation and other factors in mitigation [Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) Sch 1]. The new laws require a balancing of those factors against the primary regard of the impact on the victims in arriving at an appropriate sentence for the offending. … although detention is no longer a sentence of last resort, it is not a sentence of first resort. A consideration of the appropriate sentence involves a synthesis of all the factors relevant to the particular child to be sentenced.” [emphasis added].

5. The applicant submits, correctly, that there is very little evidence of the impact of the applicant’s offending on the victims in this matter, yet the learned magistrate placed significant weight on the impact to the victims and (in the absence of any victim impact statements) drew an inference that the victims would have suffered stress and trauma.  The applicant’s submission is that the learned magistrate’s reliance on the impact on the victims has inappropriately skewed the sentence.

6. During the course of the learned magistrate’s sentencing remarks, the following comments were made, in reference to the Making Queensland Safer Act amendments:

   “Now the court has to have its focus on the impact of these crimes on victims, which – even though I don’t have victim impact statements here – I think the court can act upon the basis that these sorts of offences cause not only damage – people lose their property – but it causes them trauma and stress.”[18] 

   And further:-

   “I have had primary regard to the impact of the offences on the victims and consider – given the facts – that the only reasonable inference is that they would have suffered stress and trauma.”[19]

   [18]Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Lana Millar affirmed 8 September 2025, Exhibit LTM2, T1-2, ll 29-32.

   [19]Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Lana Millar affirmed 8 September 2025, Exhibit LM2, T1-3, ll 16-18.

7. The respondent, on the other hand, submits that the learned magistrate appropriately placed weight upon the increased maximum penalties available, given the legislative changes, and explicitly took account of Parliament’s intention to change the law through the increased maximum penalty and the expectation placed upon the courts in response to the view of the community with respect to this type of offending.[20]

   [20]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [23].

8. The respondent submitted further that it was open to the learned magistrate to draw an inference in respect of the victim’s harm, although no victim impact statements had been placed before the court, and that in doing so, the sentence was not skewed.[21]

   [21]Exhibit 3 – Outline of Submissions on behalf of the respondent [24]-[25].

   Conclusion

9. As identified above, although it is not necessary to show error in respect of an application for sentence review, I am satisfied that error has been demonstrated.  It is now the task of the court to impose a sentence, proceeding to rehear the matter on the merits in accordance with the approach set out at R v CDV [2025] QCA 163, [42]-[47] and to undertake “a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion.”[22]

   [22]R v CDV [2025] QCA 163, [48].

10. The applicant identifies the following mitigating factors as being relevant:

    “(a)the offences were relatively – lower end of the scale of seriousness for offences of their nature – no person was harmed and no person was physically endangered;

    (b)WLT was 16 years of age and identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander;

    (c)WLT was not subject to any supervised orders at the time of the offences;

    (d)he has performed well on probation in the past;

    (e)WLT would reside with his mother and two siblings at the family home at 18 Ramsay Street, Garbutt upon his release;

    (f)he had spent 58 days on remand in pre-sentence custody;

    (g)WLT had advised that he intended to get support from Queensland Health following his release, in relation to undertaking further testing to determine his functioning level post-injury, relating to his severe traumatic brain injury;

    (h)the author of the presentence report, noted that WLT’s early exposure to adverse experiences, including domestic and family violence had resulted in WLT being vulnerable to utilising mal adapted behaviours to which he has been consistently exposed to, and aligned to his involvement in criminal behaviour.  The author further assessed that WLT’s negative peer associates serve as a contributing factor to the offences before the court;

    (i)WLT accepted the facts of the offences and was able to identify who would have been harmed in the commission of the offences.  He was able to identify emotional impacts on the victim.

    (j)WLT noted that the offending was dumb and indicated that his actions were wrong;

    (k)WLT had no plans on re-engaging with his peers [with] whom he committed the offences.

11. The applicant also identifies the period of 58 days of presentence custody (approximately two months), and the applicant’s limited criminal history at the time of the sentence as relevant factors in mitigation.

12. In addition, the applicant points to the lack of weight attributed by the learned magistrate to the pre-sentence custody, and the decision to impose the maximum possible period of a conditional release order (six months), which would mean that for a nine month detention order, of which almost two months had been already served, the applicant was placed on a conditional release order for six of the seven months’ balance of the detention order.  It is clear in those circumstances that the learned magistrate has failed to place appropriate weight on the presentence custody and has failed to give appropriate weight to the applicant’s mitigating circumstances.

13. In all of the circumstances, the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate was not proportionate, failed to balance the serious aspects of the offending against the relevant and identified mitigating circumstances, and the consequence has been a sentence which was clearly excessive in the circumstances.

14. It follows that the application for sentence review should be granted, the sentence imposed should be set aside, and a significant period of probation, which takes into account the 58 days of presentence detention, should be imposed in lieu.

    Orders

15. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

    1.   Application for sentence review granted.

    2.   Set aside all sentences imposed at the Townsville Childrens Court on 19 June 2025.

    3.   Substitute an order that the applicant be placed on probation for a period of nine months in respect of all offences for which the applicant was sentenced at the Townsville Childrens Court on 19 June 2025.

    4.   Convictions are not recorded.