View - LIME Network

pattern was observed for non-Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders in outerregional areas.QueenslandFigure 7.4.1 Queensland, proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenousjuvenile alleged offenders receiving a caution, by type ofoffence, 2004-05a, b, c, d60IndigenousNon-IndigenousPer cent cautioned50403020100AssaultSexualoffencesRobberyUnlawfulentryUnlawfuluse ofmotorvehicleTheftDrugoffencesa Proportions are calculated using data in table 7A.4.13. The number of cautions are divided by the sum of thenumber of arrests, cautions, referrals to community conference, notices to appear, summons, warrants and‘other’ methods of processing juvenile alleged offenders used by Queensland Police, multiplied by 100.b Indigenous status is based on self-identification by the juvenile. c Only those offenders whose age and sexwere identified are included. d ‘Theft’ excludes unlawful entry.Source: Queensland Police Services 2004-05; table 7A.4.13.• Figure 7.4.1 shows that in Queensland, a greater proportion of non-Indigenousjuveniles received cautions for assault, sexual offences, robbery, unlawful entry,unlawful use of a motor vehicle, theft, and drug offences than Indigenousjuveniles in 2004-05.• In Queensland, the most common caution for Indigenous juveniles was for drugoffences, at 38.7 per cent of apprehensions. The most common caution fornon-Indigenous juveniles, on the other hand, was for theft, at 55.4 per cent ofapprehensions (figure 7.4.1).• The smallest number of cautions in Queensland were issued for robbery, at7.6 per cent and 12.8 per cent of Indigenous and non-Indigenous apprehensions,respectively (figure 7.4.1).39