When sentencing a child under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), a court cannot conclude that only detention will correct behaviour through deterrence where the statutory framework mandates acceptance that non-custodial orders are better than detention for reintegration (s 150(2)(b)) and that rehabilitation is greatly assisted by educational programs (s 150(2)(c)). A sentencing judge's reasoning that a conditional release order would not be effective, where the pre-sentence report supports such an order and identifies educational programs as beneficial, is inconsistent with the mandatory statutory premises and constitutes a miscarriage of the sentencing discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.