Queensland Expands Adult Sentencing to Youth – Implications for Justice and Community

Queensland’s adult sentencing laws for young offenders: what the reforms actually did.

For most of Queensland’s legal history, a child who committed a serious offence was sentenced as a child. The Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) placed rehabilitation at the centre of the sentencing exercise, required courts to treat detention as a measure of last resort, and gave the Children’s Court jurisdiction over offenders up to 17 years of age. That framework has now been substantially dismantled for the most serious categories of offending.

The changes did not come all at once. They came in two tranches, both driven by the LNP government elected in October 2024. Understanding the current position requires tracking both Acts and what each one changed.

The first tranche: Making Queensland Safer Act 2024.

The Making Queensland Safer Act 2024 (Qld) received assent on 13 December 2024, with the core sentencing provisions commencing on that date. This Act established the “Adult Crime, Adult Time” sentencing scheme under a new section 175A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld).

The scheme works as follows. For 13 specified serious offences, a young offender is subject to the same maximum, minimum, and mandatory penalties as an adult. The Children’s Court does not lose jurisdiction over the charge itself, but in sentencing, it must apply adult penalty ranges. The practical effect is that a 16 or 17-year-old convicted of one of these offences faces the same sentencing range as an adult convicted of the same offence in the District or Supreme Court.

The original 13 prescribed offences included murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery, and dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. These are the offences that attracted the most intense public attention in Queensland in the years before the election.

The Act also removed the statutory requirement for courts to treat detention as a measure of last resort for offenders charged with prescribed offences. This is a significant change. Under the prior framework, the court was required by section 150 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to consider whether any non-custodial alternative was available before ordering detention. That requirement no longer applies to prescribed offence sentencing.

The second tranche: Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Act 2025.

The second Act received assent on 23 May 2025. It added 20 further offences to the prescribed list, bringing the total to 33. The additional offences include attempted rape, torture, trafficking in dangerous drugs, aggravated attempted robbery, and endangering a police officer by dangerous driving.

The 2025 Act also changed what happens when an offender turns 18 while in custody. Under the new provisions, a person sentenced or on remand as a young offender is transferred to adult correctional facilities within one month of their 18th birthday. The Children’s Court and youth detention system no longer retain jurisdiction simply because the person was a child at the time of the offence.

Victims’ rights were also expanded. Rather than applying to be placed on a register to receive information about an offender’s movements, victims are now automatically included and must apply to opt out.

How the two Acts interact with existing legislation.

The Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) continues to govern youth justice proceedings in Queensland. It has not been repealed. What has changed is its relationship with the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) for the prescribed offences.

For non-prescribed offences, the prior framework remains intact. The Children’s Court retains jurisdiction, rehabilitation remains a primary consideration, and the court must still consider whether detention is appropriate or whether a community-based order, probation, or intensive supervision is available. For a 15-year-old charged with a serious assault that does not appear on the prescribed list, the traditional framework applies.

For prescribed offences, the adult penalty regime under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) governs. Courts can still consider personal circumstances, background, and any guilty plea credit under section 13A. But the sentencing range is set by the adult provisions, and the structural presumption in favour of non-custodial orders has been removed.

The arguments for and against.

The government’s stated rationale for both Acts was deterrence and community safety. The argument is that the prospect of adult penalties will reduce the incidence of serious youth offending, and that the community’s confidence in the justice system requires consequences that are proportionate to the gravity of the conduct, regardless of the offender’s age.

The opposing arguments are substantial and come from a wide range of sources, including the Queensland Law Society, academics, community legal centres, and First Nations organisations.

The core counter-argument is empirical: the available evidence does not support the proposition that increased penalties deter youth crime. Young people who commit serious offences typically do not weigh criminal consequences before acting. The offending is usually impulsive, often connected to trauma, substance use, mental health, or family breakdown, and the deterrent effect of a longer sentence is negligible for a population that does not engage in rational penalty calculation.

The second concern is about trajectory. Placing young people in adult correctional facilities, or sentencing them within adult ranges, exposes them to a custodial environment that criminologists consistently identify as a driver of reoffending. A 16-year-old sentenced to 10 years for armed robbery emerges at 26 from an adult prison, having spent the formative decade of their adult life in custody. The rehabilitation question is not addressed by the sentence; it is, in a real sense, foreclosed by it.

The third concern is about distribution. Queensland’s youth justice system, like youth justice systems across Australia, disproportionately captures First Nations young people and those from severely disadvantaged backgrounds. Laws that increase penalties without addressing the conditions that produce offending will, predictably, have a disproportionate impact on those groups.

What this means for young people and families.

If a young person in Queensland is charged with any of the 33 prescribed offences, the sentencing consequences are now materially different from what they would have been before December 2024. Legal advice at the earliest possible stage is essential.

The prescribed offence list includes some charges that can arise from a single incident where the circumstances may be contested. The difference between an offence that appears on the prescribed list and one that does not can be the difference between a Children’s Court sentence calibrated to rehabilitation and an adult penalty range. How the charge is framed, whether there is scope to negotiate the charge, and whether any defence is available, are all questions that should be addressed before any plea is entered.

For families, it is also worth understanding that the Children’s Court still has jurisdiction over the proceeding itself. The adult sentencing scheme does not mean the matter is heard in the District or Supreme Court. It means the Children’s Court, when sentencing for a prescribed offence, applies adult penalty ranges. The procedural protections of the Children’s Court, including limitations on publication of identity, remain in place for the proceeding.

Fraser Lawyers advises on criminal law matters across Queensland, including youth justice proceedings and matters before the Children’s Court. If you are dealing with a charge that may fall within the prescribed offence scheme, early advice on the specific charge and its classification is the first step.

If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.