Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

TDG v Director of Public Prosecutions[2023] QCHC 32

TDG v Director of Public Prosecutions[2023] QCHC 32

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

TDG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] QChC 32

PARTIES:

TDG

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CCJ 458/23

DIVISION:

Children’s Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Bail Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Caboolture Children’s Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2023 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2023

JUDGES:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

  1. Application for bail granted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – YOUTH JUSTICE – APPLICATION FOR BAIL – where the applicant child was 14 years old at the time of offending and is now 15 – where the applicant child applies for bail in respect of 6 offences including arson – where the applicant child has been in detention for 206 days – whether the applicant child is at risk of serving too much time in custody

COUNSEL:

N Honnef for the applicant

N Phillips for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

 Introduction

  1. [2]
    This is an application for bail by the applicant, TDG, in respect of the following counts: 
    1. unlawful use of a motor vehicle (12/02/23);
    2. enter premises and commit indictable offence by break (31/03/23);
    3. unlawful use of a motor vehicle (01/04/23);
    4. arson – structural building (26/03/23);
    5. stealing of a vehicle (19/03/23); and
    6. enter premises with intent (31/03/23). 

Background

  1. [3]
    The applicant has now been in custody as a 14, and subsequently, 15 year old for 206 days, including two days in an adult watch-house, which is just slightly under seven months.  It is submitted, and the respondent Crown accepts, that it is unlikely he would receive a detention order at that level for the offending, and particularly, if required to serve further custody, would be at risk of serving too much time.
  2. [4]
    Of the offences to which this application relates, of course, the arson is, far and away, the most serious and is extremely concerning.  It appears that there is a direct link between all of the offending and the applicant child’s ongoing drug addiction, and it does seem that the time in custody has (hopefully) kept the applicant clean, but importantly, has meant that the applicant is now eager to engage with therapeutic services to address his substance misuse issues.
  3. [5]
    Further, the applicant was not on the conditional bail program at the time of his remand and the proposed order has extensive proposals in the conditional bail program to deal with various aspects of this applicant’s circumstances, including his indigenous background, for which cultural support in various ways will be provided; a therapeutic program, both in terms of counselling and the Ted Noffs Foundation drug and alcohol counselling would be provided, as well as the CHART program and a program that is designed to reduce his risk of further offending.  Again, it seems clear that any further offending in breach of an order today would inevitably result in no further assistance from the Legal Aid Office in respect of future bail applications.
  4. [6]
    The applicant is in a show cause situation and was subject to probation orders at the time of the offending, and that raises very obvious and clear concerns.  It is the risk of further offending that the Crown quite properly points to as the clear and obvious concern of this court.  That has to be balanced against an obvious risk that has now been reached that the applicant will serve too much time in detention, and without being able to predict the future, that would be at least some months before the applicant could be dealt with in a higher court, given the arson count that is one of the charges to which this application relates.
  5. [7]
    I accept the submission that the applicant, being in a show cause position, can show cause that continued detention is not justified for the reasons set out at annexure (A) of the draft order, and I am satisfied that the conditions – in particular, the residential condition, the no contact with co-offenders condition, the 6 pm to 6 am curfew and compliance with the conditional bail program – will be sufficient to ameliorate the risk of further offending.  Self-evidently, if it does not work, then the applicant will end up taking himself back into custody for a lengthy period of time before any other matters could be resolved. 

Order

  1. [8]
    As such, I make the following order:
    1. Application for bail granted.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    TDG v Director of Public Prosecutions

  • Shortened Case Name:

    TDG v Director of Public Prosecutions

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCHC 32

  • Court:

    QChC

  • Judge(s):

    Dearden DCJ

  • Date:

    24 Oct 2023

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.