AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 15 February 2018

R v ST

[2018] NSWDC 22

Theft & property
CRIME PLEA OF GUILTY BE CARRIED IN STOLEN CONVEYANCE STEAL MOTOR VEHICLE AGGRAVATED BREAK AND ENTER SENTENCE FORM 1 MATTERS

Citation: R v ST [2018] NSWDC 22
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 15 February 2018
Judge: Judge AC Scotting

Background

ST, a young person, appeared for sentencing in the District Court after pleading guilty in the Children's Court to a serious course of offending involving motor vehicles. The charges included two counts of being carried in a stolen conveyance, six counts of attempting to steal a motor vehicle, two counts of stealing a motor vehicle, and two counts of aggravated break and enter with intent to commit larceny. ST also asked the court to take into account four further offences on a Form 1 (a procedural mechanism allowing additional offences to be considered at sentencing without separate convictions being recorded).

The offending occurred across several suburbs of Sydney during March and April 2017, typically in the early hours of the morning. ST participated alongside adult co-offenders, travelling in a stolen Peugeot to target prestige vehicles, particularly Audis, by accessing service keys found in logbooks. In one instance, offenders entered an occupied home while residents slept.

ST came before the District Court because the Children's Court had committed the matter upward. ST's legal representatives sought an order under section 20 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (CCP Act) to remit the matter back to the Children's Court for penalty to be imposed there.

  • Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion under section 20 of the CCP Act to remit ST to the Children's Court for sentencing, rather than imposing penalties itself.
  • What the appropriate level of penalty was, and which court was best placed to deliver rehabilitation outcomes consistent with the principles in section 6 of the CCP Act.
  • Whether a referral to the Youth Koori Court was a course worth pursuing.

Decision

Judge Scotting concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence, had the District Court proceeded to impose one, would not have exceeded three years. The offending was serious, but ST's background, youth, and circumstances in mitigation weighed significantly in his favour.

The court found that the Children's Court was better placed to deal with ST's sentencing. The offences were of a type commonly handled in that specialist jurisdiction, which is experienced in administering the CCP Act and delivering rehabilitation outcomes tailored to young offenders. The District Court also noted that it lacked the power to refer ST to the Youth Koori Court, a power the Children's Court does hold.

The court placed significant weight on ST's progress during his nine months on remand. Reports from Juvenile Justice indicated he had completed vocational training and drug and alcohol programs, shown insight into the harm caused to his grandfather, and demonstrated respectful behaviour. The court described the remittal as likely ST's last opportunity to be dealt with under the CCP Act framework.

Judge Scotting also observed that dealing with the matter in the Children's Court or Youth Koori Court would facilitate a quicker resolution and make any appeal more straightforward. On all these grounds, the court exercised its discretion to remit.

Orders Made

  • ST convicted of each count.
  • Matter remitted to the Children's Court pursuant to section 20 of the CCP Act for the imposition of penalties.
  • ST remanded in custody to the Children's Court at Surry Hills on 19 February 2018.
  • Recommendation made that consideration be given to referring ST to the Youth Koori Court.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court's power under section 20 of the CCP Act to remit a young offender to the Children's Court for sentencing is discretionary and available where the offender is under 21 years of age and the offences are not serious children's indictable offences.
  • Rehabilitation prospects, the specialist nature of the Children's Court, and access to resources unavailable in the District Court (including the Youth Koori Court) are all relevant considerations when exercising the section 20 remittal discretion.
  • Under section 6 of the CCP Act, courts dealing with children must have regard to principles including the desirability of rehabilitation, reintegration, and avoiding unnecessary disruption to education or home life, and these principles informed the court's reasoning.
  • The fact that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to refer a matter to the Youth Koori Court, while the Children's Court holds that power, was a distinct factor favouring remittal.
  • Evidence of positive conduct and program completion during remand, combined with a genuine desire to address offending behaviour, supported the conclusion that this was an appropriate case for the specialist children's jurisdiction to impose sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(2), 154A(1)(b), 154F
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 6, 18(1A), 20, 21, 31(5)(c)
- Bail Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.