Clancy v Gokel
20 September 2000 - Angel ACT, Bailey and Riley JJ

The appellant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty in the Juvenile Court to two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, five counts of stealing, three counts of aggravated unlawful entry of a dwelling house, one count of attempted unlawful entry, one count of aggravated unlawful damage and two counts of unlawful damage. The offences were committed during six different episodes of offending over a period of two months.

The circumstances were fairly typical of their kind, entry into houses and stealing cash, jewellery, alcohol and other goods. On one occasion the appellant stole a keycard from her aunt and withdrew $290.00 in six different transactions from her aunt's account. This money was spent on alcohol, cannabis, clothing and jewellery. The motor vehicles were taken for joy riding and none of them were damaged. On most, if not all occasions, the appellant was accompanied by another or others. The value of the property stolen was $4,400.00 and the value of the property damaged was $3,540.00.

The appellant was 14 years old when the offending took place. The offences were committed while the appellant was four months into an 18-month good behaviour bond for offences of dishonesty. The appellant's prior history included a previous breach of a community service order.

The appellant was sentenced to a total of 12 months detention which was wholly suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for two years. Conditions were attached to the bond. Although the maximum penalties for the offences ranged between two years and twenty years, 12 months is the maximum period for which an order for detention of a juvenile may be made.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. On 2 September 1999 the court dismissed the appeal.

The unsuccessful appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal where it was argued that the Supreme Court was in error in dismissing the appeal. The appellant complained of the length of the fully suspended term of 12 months and also the length of the two-year bond.

The court unanimously dismissed the appeal holding that the sentencing magistrate might well, given the appellant's prior history of broken bonds, have ordered the appellant to actually serve a period of detention. The respondent was not called upon to make oral submissions.