On re-sentencing a juvenile offender under s 668E(3) of the Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal may receive and consider post-sentence evidence of the offender's rehabilitation in detention. The three judges reached this conclusion on different bases: Fitzgerald P held the Juvenile Justice Act objectives override the literal construction of s 668E(3); Davies JA held s 668E(3) does not limit evidence to that available at original sentencing because post-sentence evidence reveals what rehabilitation prospects then were; Moynihan J agreed the principle in R v Cornale did not prevent consideration of post-sentence matters in this context. The Juvenile Justice Act 1992 contains a clear legislative intent against extending a child's detention for any longer than necessary.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.