The Children Court rejected a defence application to dismiss charges against an anonymised 17-year-old who had been in, or was about to enter, a special care unit when the alleged offences occurred. The court found him guilty of the specific charges addressed in the judgment and proposed a Family Welfare Conference before adjourning the proceedings. It did not impose a sentence in the judgment.
The defence argued that prosecuting the teenager for conduct linked to his challenging behaviour while in special care would compound the effects of his civil detention. It also submitted that the court should have doubts about whether he had the required criminal intent. The prosecution said the criminal case was separate from the High Court’s civil special care proceedings and should be determined by the Children Court.
Judge John O’Connor ruled that the charges were validly before the court and would not be dismissed on the basis of a “double penalty”. He found that the teenager could follow the proceedings with assistance from his guardian, had received a fair trial and had the required intent for the offences. The judgment says he was found guilty of the specific charges mentioned in it. Other charges against him had been dismissed on their merits.
The judgment describes the child as having autism spectrum disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, ADHD and conduct disorder, as well as a history of communication and learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural needs. It says he had a positive relationship with staff at his placement and supportive parents, while also recording episodes of risk-taking behaviour and concern about his wellbeing and mental health.
The court said custody, including detention and supervision, was not suitable. It had initially considered a probation bond involving work tailored to the teenager, but said his behaviour had recently deteriorated to the point that he and the Probation Service could not work together. The court also considered a family conference under section 78 and restorative justice unsuitable in his circumstances.
Instead, the judge said he proposed to direct the Child and Family Agency to convene a Family Welfare Conference under section 77 of the Children Act 2001. He proposed to adjourn the proceedings to a date specified in court. The judgment does not state the date or record a final sentencing order.