Behrens v Deeks - [2025] QCA 158

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Behrens v Deeks [2025] QCA 158

PARTIES:

BEHRENS, Andrew James
(applicant)
v
RUTH DEEKS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2024
DC No 1810 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2024] QDC 87 (Sheridan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2025

JUDGES:

Bradley and Doyle JJA and Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – where the applicant was found guilty of eight offences of failing to take reasonable steps to provide for the care needs of animals following a two day trial in the Caboolture Magistrates Court – where irregularities occurred in the sentencing process in that Court – where the applicant appealed his conviction, sentence and prohibition order to the District Court – where that appeal was allowed in part to reduce the contribution towards veterinary fees – where the primary judge made an order as to costs in favour of the respondent but otherwise confirmed the sentencing of the Magistrates Court – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal from the District Court pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the applicant contends that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of irregularities in the Magistrates Court and on the basis that the individual components of his sentence were onerous and that in aggregate they were excessive – whether the applicant has demonstrated that the primary judge erred

Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), s 17(3)(ii)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)

Smith v Woodward[2009] QCA 119, cited
Williamson v Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 594; [2020] QCA 52, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Cartledge for the applicant
D M Caruana for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gnech and Associates for the applicant
Jasper Fogerty Lawyers for the respondent

BRADLEY JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Doyle JA and with his Honour’s reasons.
DOYLE JA: The primary application before the Court is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant in the Magistrates Court as subsequently modified by order of the District Court. The application is opposed.
Additionally, the applicant (Mr Behrens) has applied for leave to adduce further evidence on the hearing of his application in the form of an affidavit of his solicitor providing information relating to the state of his finances. That leave is not opposed. The application for leave to appeal has recently been amended and leave, if required, is not opposed.
The applications to amend and to admit further evidence are allowed. These reasons will address only the application for leave to appeal.

Background

After…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Behrens v Deeks

Details

AGLC: Behrens v Deeks [2025] QCA 158
Case: [2025] QCA 158
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Behrens v Deeks is a case concerning an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Caboolture Magistrates Court and subsequently reviewed by the District Court. The applicant, Behrens, was convicted of eight offences related to failing to take reasonable steps to provide for the care needs of animals. The appeal was against both his conviction, sentence, and a prohibition order. The irregularities during sentencing in the Magistrates Court led to an appeal to the District Court, where the appeal was partially successful in reducing the contribution towards veterinary fees. The District Court judge upheld the sentencing in other respects but ordered costs in favour of the respondent.

The key legal issues in this case revolved around whether the sentencing discretion of the Magistrates Court miscarried due to the irregularities, and whether the cumulative effect of the individual components of the sentence was excessive. The applicant argued that the irregularities in the Magistrates Court had a detrimental effect on the sentencing process and that the overall sentence was unduly harsh. The court had to determine if the District Court judge was correct in affirming the Magistrates Court's sentence, despite the irregularities, and if the sentence was proportionate and appropriate given the circumstances.

The court found that the irregularities did not significantly impact the sentencing process or outcome, and that the sentence was proportionate and justified. The court concluded that the District Court judge did not err in either the conviction, sentence, or in ordering costs. The applicant's contention that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing discretion miscarried was rejected. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, and it was ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Behrens v Deeks [2025] QCA 158
PARTIES:	BEHRENS, Andrew James (applicant) v RUTH DEEKS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 150 of 2024 DC No 1810 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2024] QDC 87 (Sheridan DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2025
JUDGES:	Bradley and Doyle JJA and Martin SJA
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – where the applicant was found guilty of eight offences of failing to take reasonable steps to provide for the care needs of animals following a two day trial in the Caboolture Magistrates Court – where irregularities occurred in the sentencing process in that Court – where the applicant appealed his conviction, sentence and prohibition order to the District Court – where that appeal was allowed in part to reduce the contribution towards veterinary fees – where the primary judge made an order as to costs in favour of the respondent but otherwise confirmed the sentencing of the Magistrates Court – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal from the District Court pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the applicant contends that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of irregularities in the Magistrates Court and on the basis that the individual components of his sentence were onerous and that in aggregate they were excessive – whether the applicant has demonstrated that the primary judge erred Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), s 17(3)(ii) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Smith v Woodward[2009] QCA 119, cited Williamson v Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 594; [2020] QCA 52, cited
COUNSEL:	S J Cartledge for the applicant D M Caruana for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gnech and Associates for the applicant Jasper Fogerty Lawyers for the respondent