The child was sentenced at Rockhampton Children's Court on July 3, 2018, with no convictions recorded.

However, Judge Ian Dearden granted a sentence review, claiming the previous judge was not prepared to consider restorative justice.

Despite the boy already completing his 30 hours of community service, the probation period has been set aside and would be referred to a restorative justice process.

The boy had committed multiple offences, including tresspassing and common assault, but only had two matters on his criminal history, which he was dealt with in the Children's Court on February 15, 2018, at the time of his sentencing with no conviction recorded and a reprimand for stealing and wilful damage.

The application for review was filed on July 30, 2018.

The submission on behalf of the boy argued the sentence order was "excessive in the circumstances" and the magistrate did not properly consider the relevance of restorative justice.

During the course the sentencing, the applicant’s counsel submitted for an accommodation of restorative justice and a short probation order.

However, the magistrate said he was not in favour of restorative justice.

"It’s all airy fairy, if you ask me," they said.

"I’d rather that people be supervised and get to the root of the problem ... and that needs to be addressed because he can’t afford to keep on running amok because he is going to be facing much more heavy penalties if he keeps doing it..."

The magistrate said things would get worse for the boy and the community.

A Youth Justice Department spokesperson explained to the restorative justice was a conference they held for the young person who had to attend and victims and organisations were welcome to join.

"The department does spent (sic) a lot of time educating them about the process and supporting them to attend in a safe way," they said.

"We also invite elders, if the young person is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ... we also invite police officers and potentially representatives from other organisations, like the Department of Transport and Main Roads is a frequent attender (sic) at conferences.

"They sit down and educate the young person about the impacts of their offending.

"We do find it to be an effective process, not just for the young person."

The magistrate then asked how they judged the effectiveness and if they had results that people would not reoffend.

The Youth Justice spokesperson said they did not have statistics available on the day but it was a process for not only the boy but the community.

"It’s about the victims, primarily have the ability to-" they said, before the magistrate interjected.

"Yes, I’ve heard enough-" the magistrate said.

"...address-" the Youth Justice spokesperson continued.

"I’ve heard enough of it, though. Stop. I – yep, but – yeah, thank you...," the magistrate said.

The magistrate decided against the restoration justice process.

Judge Dearden, who reviewed the case, said the magistrate "was dismissive and somewhat critical of the concept of restorative", which understated the situation.

"Clearly, in this matter, (the magistrate) declined to consider in circumstances where it was clearly an appropriate and applicable alternative to be considered," he said.

"Although the sentence review process is a rehearing, and although it is not necessary in those circumstances to find error, it is quite clear that the magistrate has unreasonably constrained the exercise of his sentencing discretion by his expressed general attitude about restorative justice."

Judge Dearden said despite the serious aspects, he believed the offences were "extraordinarily well suited to a restorative justice process" and would be of great benefit for the boy.

"The further complication is that as a result of miscommunication, this child has completed his 30 hours of community service, which, it appears, has gone well for him," he said.

"In those circumstances, given the learned magistrate’s refusal to consider the restorative justice alternative, particularly after it had been explained, in my view, quite appropriately and reasonably fulsomely by the Youth Justice representative, it is a situation where the application for sentence review should be granted."