AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 June 2007

Jade M. v Regina

[2007] NSWDC 143

Theft & propertyPublic order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW SEVERITY APPEAL FROM CHILDRENS' COURT JUVENILE OFFENDER BREAK ENTER WITH INTENT MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT TYPE OFFENCES

Citation: Jade M. v Regina [2007] NSWDC 143
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 June 2007
Judge(s): Nicholson SC DCJ

Background

The appellant was a young person who came before the Children's Court at Moree on charges of break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, taking and driving a conveyance, and being carried in a conveyance without the owner's consent. He also faced proceedings for breaching an existing bond. His record showed approximately 15 to 20 appearances before the courts between 2003 and 2005.

The Children's Court imposed sentences on each offence. The appellant brought a severity appeal to the District Court, contending those sentences were too harsh.

Before proceeding to determine the appeal, Nicholson SC DCJ placed the appellant on what the judgment describes as a "Griffith remand" under s 33(1)(C) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. This required the appellant to live with his uncle and extended family in the Coffs Harbour region, away from his home area, for 12 months as a condition of bail designed to facilitate rehabilitation.

  • Whether the sentences imposed by the Children's Court were manifestly excessive, warranting appellate intervention on severity grounds.
  • What sentencing outcome was appropriate for a juvenile offender who had successfully completed a structured, court-supervised rehabilitation period under s 33(1)(C) bail conditions.
  • Whether any action should be taken in respect of the breach of the existing bond, in light of the appellant's conduct during the supervised bail period.

Decision

By the time the matter returned for finalisation, the appellant had completed approximately nine months on the s 33(1)(C) bail conditions. Nicholson SC DCJ accepted the appellant's evidence that he had not come to the attention of police or Juvenile Justice authorities during that period.

The court found the rehabilitation progress was not merely the absence of offending. The appellant had undertaken study, engaged with alcohol and drug counselling, enrolled in a literacy and numeracy course, obtained employment as a groundsman at a rugby ground in Coffs Harbour, and joined a local under-18 football team. His Honour observed that these social connections were particularly significant, especially where they were with peers who were not engaged in substance misuse.

Nicholson SC DCJ upheld the severity appeal and quashed the sentences imposed by the Children's Court. In substituting a fresh disposition, his Honour took into account the nine months already served under the s 33(1)(C) conditions and imposed a six-month good behaviour bond, noting that this meant the appellant would have been on good behaviour for over a year in total.

On the breach of bond matter, the court took no action. His Honour considered that the time the appellant had served in custody, together with the demands of the rehabilitation bail conditions, adequately addressed that matter.

Orders Made

  • Severity appeals in respect of each offence upheld.
  • Sentences imposed by the Children's Court quashed.
  • In lieu of those sentences: the appellant to enter into a good behaviour bond for six months under s 33(1)(b) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.
  • Breach of suspended court order: no action taken.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated successful completion of a structured s 33(1)(C) rehabilitation bail as a weighty mitigating factor justifying a substantially reduced disposition on severity appeal.
  • Under s 33(1)(C) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, a court may impose conditions requiring a juvenile offender to reside in a specified location under family supervision as a form of bail-enforced rehabilitation, sometimes called a "Griffith remand."
  • Positive rehabilitative gains during the bail period, including employment, study, counselling, and prosocial connections, were treated by the court as directly relevant to the appropriate final sentence.
  • Where a juvenile had already served time in custody and completed demanding bail conditions, the court held that no further action on a related bond breach was warranted.
  • In finalising a severity appeal, the total period of compliance and supervision already endured informed the length and nature of any fresh order imposed by the appellate court.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 33(1)(C) (rehabilitation bail conditions) and s 33(1)(b) (good behaviour bond)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment text or metadata.