A sentencing judge in the Childrens Court who receives a pre-sentence report identifying viable non-custodial alternatives must explain in the sentencing remarks why those alternatives are rejected in favour of detention. It does not follow that detention is appropriate simply because a child has previously been subject to non-custodial orders and has reoffended. The period of detention served in respect of other sentences is a relevant consideration going to the total impact of the sentence to be imposed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.