Juvenile fronts Rockhampton Children’s Court breaching DVO, bail

One Central Queensland teenage couple might consider themselves a modern-day Romeo and Juliet with the courts barring them from being together, but they haven’t let it stop them.

Female and male generic image

One Central Queensland teen couple may consider themselves the modern day version of Romeo and Juliet, with the courts barring them from being together.

The pair did not allow court orders and hundreds of kilometres to stop them.

Unfortunately for the teenage boy of them, it led them spending a night in Rockhampton watchhouse before fronting Rockhampton Children’s Court for breaching a domestic violence order three times and breaching bail.

Police prosecutor Clancy Fox said the DV order contained a condition that the defendant did not go within 50m of the aggrieved.

Mr Fox said the aggrieve, a girl, who lived hundreds of kilometres away, asked a witness if she could stay with the defendant, aged 17, while she was in Rockhampton.

Mr Fox said the aggrieved was told no by the witness.

The court heard the witness left town for a period and returned to discover the aggrieved in the defendant’s bedroom, and that she had stayed there for several weeks.

The defendant and the aggrieved had been spotted in each other’s company in public by police, leaning against a wall of a building in Campbell Lane and in the George Street Hungry Jack’s car park.

Mr Fox said they were spotted together again in a gazebo when police were attending a unit for an unrelated matter.

He said the defendant also failed to report as part of his bail conditions four out of 11 times and to attend programs four out of 11 times.

Mr Fox said the male teen had previously had periods of detention imposed and restorative justice orders, probation orders for different types of offences.

He said the defendant was placed on probation in June for breaching the DV order between himself and this aggrieved and as well as other offending.

“It does appear clear that the defendant will continue to breach the domestic violence order – the two parties wanting to reside together and continue with their relationship and continue having contact,” Mr Fox said.

“And that’s been the case in spite of objections from the guardian of the respondent and the order that the court imposed on them to not have that contact with each other.

“The contact between them represents a risk of further offences occurring.”

He said probation orders have not been able to address any underlying causes which contribute to his offending and breaching that order continuously.

The court heard the defendant is currently on three probation orders.

Defence lawyer Pierre Lammersdorf said he had explained to his client that no variation applications could be made to the DV order until there was some compliance with the order for a period of time and he addressed some of his issues through his probation order.

He said his client has the support of his mother, who worked full-time and was appearing by phone in court to support him.

Mr Lammersdorf said the defendant only had a grade eight education and limited employment history.

“Looking at him yawning the whole time you’ve been making submission, I just wonder if he’s keeping up a proper routine,” Magistrate Philippa Beckinsale said.

“He should be getting up in the morning, looking for work, going to bed at a sensible time and complying with his conditional bail program.”

The teen’s mother told the court if her son got a job, she was willing to drive him to and from the job.

He told the court he couldn’t get a job because he had to be at Youth Justice offices three days a week.

Ms Beckinsale advised Youth Justice would work around employment obligations.

The teenager then complained he could not work because he had stitches in his foot and he had just started walking on it without crutches.

He pleaded guilty to all four offences.

Ms Beckinsale sentenced him to a restorative justice order with no conviction record, reprimanded him for the bail breaches and declined to revoke any bail.

She told the defendant he could not be in a relationship with his girlfriend any more and to not let his mother down.