Young person sentenced to 12-month control order for offences of larceny and break and enter in company, eligible for parole after 6 months — committed a fresh offence of larceny prior to parole — Children’s Court in its parole jurisdiction revoked the parole order — young person committed another offence and was fined — Children’s Court has implied power in its parole jurisdiction to rescind an order for revocation of parole when necessary for the purposes of avoiding extending a detention order by the number of days the person was at large after the order took effect — avoids injustice to young person, satisfies objects of Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987, and furthers the objects of all relevant legislation in the Children’s Court and principles that apply in terms of prioritising rehabilitation of children — previous order for revocation rescinded and original order of parole continues.

Children’s Court Parole jurisdiction — defendant pleaded guilty to reckless wounding in company — sentenced to detention for 12 months and non parole period and period of parole — released and committed further offences on parole — Secretary requested court confirm revocation of parole or make a fresh revocation — original revocation of parole not confirmed — order rescinding the original revocation of parole order pursuant to the implied power of Children’s Court — no need for fresh revocation of parole because young person has been further sentenced for affray and will be under a control order for another two months and under conditions of parole for a further six months — reinstatement of the original order for parole which has expired — following obiter dicta binding on all future parole proceedings in Children’s Court — calculation of the period referred to in s 68(3) Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 which provides that if young offender is not taken into custody until after the day on which the order revoking the parole order takes effect, the term of the offender’s detention order is extended by the number of days the person was at large after the order took effect (“Street Time”) — proper method of calculating the extension of a detention order where there has been a breach of parole and the young person has been at large — the calculation of street time under s 68(3) is to be made having reference to time at large and time in custody not referable to the original offences for which the parole order in question was made — Palizio v NSW Parole Authority [2013] NSWSC 1829 followed.

Appeal against commencement of sentence — applicant sentenced to four years with a non-parole period of two years — towards the end of the non-parole period the applicant committed a further offence while on day release — erroneous understanding that applicant had been released on parole and was subject to parole conditions — sentence held to commence consecutively after first sentence of four years expired — applicant was refused bail and remained in custody — commencement of sentence for third offence to commence after non-parole period of two years.

Sentencing appeal — murder — offender aged 16 and murder victim aged 15 — sentencing judge remarked that “against the statutory provision of a non-parole period of 25 years, I do not feel able to reduce the non-parole period below 17 years and see no point in a further term exceeding 5 years” — Muldrock error — Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 — the High Court in Muldrock clarified that the standard non-parole period is but one guidepost and is not to be used as a starting point in the sentencing process — appeal dismissed (by majority) — see appeal, DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215, below.

Severity appeal — s 61I Crimes Act 1900 — sexual intercourse without consent — applicant a week short of his 17th birthday at the time of the offence — judge erred by using standard non-parole period as a guide — relevance of the applicant’s youth — emotional maturity and impulse control may not be fully developed until the early to mid-twenties — application of R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 — whether appropriate to give effect to the applicant’s deprived background.