The Court: Frankston Children’s Courts
The Lawyer: Rebecca Glew
The Charges:
Armed Robbery is one of the most serious crimes. The maximum penalty is 25 years in prison. However, the sentencing scheme and penalties differ significantly when a child commits a crime.
The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 governs the sentencing of young offenders. The focus of sentencing is rehabilitation so that children can learn from their mistakes and not re-offend in the future. However, children can still be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment.
The Allegations:
The client was a 17-year-old male at the time of the offence. He had been drinking with some friends when they met a group of younger boys. He and his friends approached the other boys and demanded that they hand over their phones and other valuables.
One of our client’s friends had a knife and used it to threaten the other group. Our client’s group then proceeded to assault the younger boys physically and took their valuables.
The client was tracked as he kept one of the victim’s phones. He was arrested and interviewed, during which he made full admissions to being involved in the incident and assisted the police regarding the other offenders.
At Court:
The client attended court approximately five months after the offence. At court, our solicitor successfully negotiated with the prosecution to have the lesser charges withdrawn. The prosecution conceded that our client had played a minor role in the incident, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offences, and that his assistance to the police provided them sufficient information to charge the co-offenders.
The fact that our client made adverse admissions during the interview meant that he was in a position where he had to plead guilty but could also rely upon his cooperation in mitigation.
Following a summary case conference with the prosecution, a guilty plea was entered on behalf of our client to the charge of Robbery. We submitted to the Magistrate that our client’s role in the robbery was minor, as supported by the prosecution. We could also rely upon our client’s significant cooperation.
Given that our client had attended our office early and listened to our solicitor’s advice about making changes and engaging in courses, we could demonstrate to the Magistrate that our client had made significant changes to his life. Although extremely serious, the Magistrate was persuaded that the client’s conduct on this occasion generally did not indicate his character.
The Outcome:
The Magistrate ultimately acquiesced to our submission that a good behaviour bond was the appropriate sentence. The only conditions of the bond were that our client pay $500 to the court fund and be of good behaviour for 12 months. The Magistrate also made the bond without a criminal conviction.
This was a fantastic result for our client, who was given an opportunity that most people charged with such a serious offence would not receive. Had he been only a few months older, our client’s case would have been in the County Court of Victoria, and a term of imprisonment would have been a certainty.
