A court case in North Queensland has highlighted the intersection of the justice system and cognitive disability, after an 18-year-old man faced charges of breaking into a business.
Court Hears Details of Alleged Offence
The young man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared before the Ingham Magistrates Court on Monday. The court was told the alleged incident occurred on a Sunday in early February. Police prosecutor Sergeant Emma Myors outlined the case, stating the teen was allegedly involved in a break-in at a commercial premises on Herbert Street in Ingham.
According to the prosecution, the teen and another person were captured on CCTV footage. The footage reportedly showed them using a metal pole to force open a roller door to gain entry to the business. Once inside, it is alleged they stole a quantity of cash. The court heard the matter was still under active police investigation.
Defence Submits on Bail and Disability
Defence lawyer Cleo Rewald, acting for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service, made submissions on behalf of her client. She informed the court that the teenager has a diagnosed cognitive disability. Ms Rewald also noted a significant complicating factor: the young man was already on bail for other matters at the time of the alleged break-in.
Despite this, the defence lawyer applied for her client's bail to be continued. She argued there were conditions that could be imposed to mitigate any risk. Magistrate Warren Telford considered the application from the defence alongside the submissions from the police prosecutor.
Magistrate's Decision and Next Steps
After hearing from both sides, Magistrate Telford made his ruling. He decided to grant bail to the 18-year-old under strict conditions. The specific conditions of the bail order were not detailed in the open court reporting. The case was then adjourned to allow for further police work.
The matter is scheduled to return to the Ingham Magistrates Court later in April for further mention. This will give police time to continue their investigation and potentially finalise the brief of evidence. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by those advocating for more nuanced approaches to justice for individuals with cognitive impairments.
