R v Brookes - [2025] QCA 38

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brookes [2025] QCA 38

PARTIES:

R
v
BROOKES, Beau Daniel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 284 of 2024
DC No 131 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 4 December 2024 (Balic DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2025

JUDGES:

Boddice and Brown JJA and Gotterson AJA

ORDER:

The application be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, with a parole release date fixed after eight months and 24 days, with 24 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served and compensation of $6,000 – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of discretion in sentencing the applicant – whether there was a misapplication of principle by the trial judge resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SPECIFIC ERROR – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, with a parole release date fixed after eight months and 24 days, with 24 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served and compensation of $6,000 – where it was submitted that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of specific error – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the time spent in pre-sentence custody when calculating the parole release date – whether any such specific error occurred such that the sentencing discretion miscarried

R v Chitty; Ex parte Attorney General (Qld)[2021] QCA 2, considered
R v Dietz[2009] QCA 392, cited
R v Hardie[2025] QCA 24, considered
R v Iese[2017] QCA 68, considered
R v MCT[2018] QCA 189, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Stringer[2014] QCA 342, considered
R v Tapiolas[2008] QCA 118, considered
R v Thompson[2019] QCA 209, considered

COUNSEL:

S J Cartledge for the applicant
S J Muir for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gnech and Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BODDICE JA: I agree with Brown JA.
BROWN JA: The applicant, Beau Daniel Brookes was sentenced for one count of grievous bodily harm on 4 December 2024 to two years six months with a parole release date of 3 August 2025 and compensation of $6,000. Twenty four days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentence on two grounds:
(a)That the sentence was manifestly excessive;
(b)That the learned sentencing judge erred in not…

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 R v Brookes

Details

AGLC: R v Brookes [2025] QCA 38
Case: [2025] QCA 38
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brookes, the appellant, Brookes, appealed against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge erred in his exercise of discretion. Brookes had pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months. The parole release date was set after eight months and 24 days, with 24 days of pre-sentence custody deemed as time served, and compensation of $6,000 was ordered. The appeal hinged on whether the sentencing judge had erred in his discretion and whether there was a misapplication of sentencing principles that led to an excessively harsh sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if there was a specific error that miscarried the sentencing discretion. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the time spent in pre-sentence custody when calculating the parole release date, thereby imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. The court was required to determine if such an error indeed occurred and if it amounted to a miscarriage of sentencing discretion.

The court considered the arguments put forward by Brookes and examined the sentencing process and principles applied by the sentencing judge. The court noted that the sentence imposed was within the statutory maximum for the offence of grievous bodily harm and that the judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found no evidence of a misapplication of sentencing principles or specific error that miscarried the sentencing discretion. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The court upheld the sentence, finding no basis for interference. The application for a new trial or appeal against the sentence was refused. The sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months, with a parole release date after eight months and 24 days, and the compensation order of $6,000, remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Brookes [2025] QCA 38
PARTIES:	R v BROOKES, Beau Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 284 of 2024 DC No 131 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 4 December 2024 (Balic DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 March 2025
JUDGES:	Boddice and Brown JJA and Gotterson AJA
ORDER:	The application be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, with a parole release date fixed after eight months and 24 days, with 24 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served and compensation of $6,000 – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of discretion in sentencing the applicant – whether there was a misapplication of principle by the trial judge resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SPECIFIC ERROR – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, with a parole release date fixed after eight months and 24 days, with 24 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served and compensation of $6,000 – where it was submitted that the sentencing discretion miscarried because of specific error – where it was submitted that the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the time spent in pre-sentence custody when calculating the parole release date – whether any such specific error occurred such that the sentencing discretion miscarried R v Chitty; Ex parte Attorney General (Qld)[2021] QCA 2, considered R v Dietz[2009] QCA 392, cited R v Hardie[2025] QCA 24, considered R v Iese[2017] QCA 68, considered R v MCT[2018] QCA 189, cited R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Stringer[2014] QCA 342, considered R v Tapiolas[2008] QCA 118, considered R v Thompson[2019] QCA 209, considered
COUNSEL:	S J Cartledge for the applicant S J Muir for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gnech and Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent