R v BDY

Case [2023] QCA 40


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BDY [2023] QCA 40

PARTIES:

R
v
BDY

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 16 of 2022
DC No 20 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Ipswich – Unreported, 10 December 2021 (Lynch KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 June 2022

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Bond JJA and Flanagan J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant, aged 17 years and 8 months, broke into the complainant’s home and assaulted the complainant until she lost consciousness – where the applicant then slashed the child complainant across the ear, face and throat with broken glass – where the applicant was sentenced under the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – where the sentence amounted to 6 years detention and due to special circumstances the applicant was to be released after serving 50 per cent of the detention order – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence was premeditated – whether the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the applicant’s mental health condition – whether the recording of a conviction was manifestly excessive

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 184

R v JO[2008] QCA 260, cited
R v Minniecon
[2017] QCA 29, cited
R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 3 QR 578; [2020] QCA 51, cited
R v SDK (2020) 6 QR 568; [2020] QCA 269, cited

COUNSEL:

C R Smith for the applicant
E L Kelso for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO JA:  I agree with Bond JA.

  2. BOND JA:  On 10 December 2021 the applicant was convicted on her own plea of guilty of having committed the following offences on 9 November 2020:

    (a)Count 1: she entered the dwelling of ERR with intent to commit an indictable offence in the dwelling with the aggravating features that the entry was means of a break and the applicant used actual violence and damaged property;

    (b)Count 2: she unlawfully assaulted ERR and did her bodily harm; and

    (c)Count 3: with intent to do grievous bodily harm to KJL, she unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to KJL.

  3. The applicant’s conduct involved grave offending.  ERR, aged 53, was the estranged mother of the applicant’s boyfriend, DAL, aged 32.  KJL, aged 7, was DAL’s daughter, by a former partner. She was in the custody of ERR.  The applicant, herself aged only 17 years and 8 months, approached ERR at her home in breach of a domestic violence order which had been obtained against her and ignored ERR’s instruction to leave.  When ERR barricaded herself and KJL inside a room, the applicant broke into ERR’s…

Continue reading R v BDY

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v B [2023] QCA 40
Case
[2023] QCA 40
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v BDY involved an applicant who, at the age of 17 years and 8 months, committed a violent crime by breaking into a complainant's home and assaulting her until she lost consciousness. The applicant further inflicted severe injuries by slashing the complainant's ear, face, and throat with broken glass. The applicant was sentenced under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to six years of detention, with a provision for early release after serving 50 per cent of the detention order due to special circumstances. The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, that the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence premeditated, that the sentence did not adequately reflect the applicant's mental health condition, and that the recording of a conviction was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence premeditated, whether the sentence adequately reflected the applicant's mental health condition, and whether the recording of a conviction was manifestly excessive. The court examined the severity of the crime, the nature of the applicant's actions, and the principles of sentencing for juveniles as outlined in the Youth Justice Act. The court also considered the applicant's age, mental health, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the appropriate range for the severity of the crime committed. The court rejected the argument that the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence premeditated, as there was sufficient evidence to support this finding. The court also determined that the sentence adequately reflected the applicant's mental health condition and that the recording of a conviction was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

The court's reasoning and findings led to the conclusion that the application for leave to appeal the sentence should be refused. The order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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

This appeal ground would fail.Conclusion The application for leave to appeal the sentence should be refused. FLANAGAN J: I agree with Bond JA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.