R v BXY

Case [2023] QSC 42 10 March 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BXY [2023] QSC 42

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

BXY

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

CS 123 of 2022 and CS 144 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2023

JUDGE:

Bowskill CJ

ORDERS:

The defendant is sentenced as follows:

On count 1 – burglary and stealing – detention for 18 months.

On count 2 – unlawfully using a motor vehicle – detention for 18 months.

On count 3 – dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, while excessively speeding – detention for five years.

On count 4 – manslaughter – detention for seven years.

Each of the periods of detention are to be served concurrently.

On the summary charge of driving without a licence – the defendant is reprimanded.

The convictions of counts 3 and 4 are recorded. All other convictions are not recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:
C Cook for the Crown
J Treviño KC for the defendant

A Stephens and A Chamberlain appeared for the chief executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland, for the defendant

BXY, the Court is sentencing you today for serious criminal offences. The most serious one is the unlawful killing – or manslaughter – of BS. You are also being sentenced for the offence of dangerously driving a car, while you were adversely affected by drugs and excessively speeding, causing grievous bodily harm to three people, TW, DM and KD. You are also being sentenced for offences of burglary and stealing (entering the home of another person and stealing their property), unlawful use of a car (stealing the car) as well as driving without a licence when you have never held a licence. You have accepted responsibility for your offending by pleading guilty to all of those offences on 8 December 2022.
There are things I need to explain about the sentences which will be imposed on you today, as punishment for these offences. Some of those things might be confusing to you, but I still need to explain them. I am going to tell you straight away what the sentences are, and then you can sit down while I explain my reasons.
Your behaviour in the middle of the night on 14 February 2022 was truly awful. You were wild, and thought nothing about other people’s property or the rules of society that keep us safe. With your friend, BS, you stole a car and then drove very dangerously through the streets of Cairns, with other children in that stolen car. You had planned to steal that car earlier in the day. You were on drugs, and out of control. Your driving caused the car to crash so badly it was crushed. Nobody was wearing a seatbelt. BS was so badly injured, he died there by the scene of the…

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 BXY

Details

AGLC: R v BXY [2023] QSC 42
Case: [2023] QSC 42
Decision Date: 10 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, BXY, faced the Supreme Court on a range of charges including burglary, theft, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, dangerous operation of a vehicle, and manslaughter. The facts of the case involved a series of incidents culminating in a serious car accident that resulted in grievous bodily harm and a fatality. The defendant was also charged with driving without a licence. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for the various charges, as well as the appropriate recording of convictions.

The legal issues before the court were complex, involving the interpretation of various sections of the Crimes Act and the Sentencing Act. The court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and any mitigating factors. The court also had to decide the appropriate relationship between the sentences for the various charges and whether they should run concurrently or consecutively. Finally, the court had to determine the appropriate action to take in relation to the summary charge of driving without a licence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences, particularly the dangerous operation of a vehicle that resulted in grievous bodily harm and death. The court found that the defendant's actions were reckless and demonstrated a lack of regard for the safety of others. The court considered the defendant's previous criminal record and the circumstances surrounding each offence. After weighing these factors, the court decided on a sentence of concurrent detention periods for the various charges, with the most severe penalty being imposed for the manslaughter charge. The court also decided to reprimand the defendant for the summary charge of driving without a licence and not to record all other convictions.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant would serve 18 months for the burglary and theft, 18 months for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle, five years for the dangerous operation of a vehicle and manslaughter, with all sentences to run concurrently. The court also issued a reprimand for the driving without a licence offence and recorded only the convictions for the dangerous operation of a vehicle and manslaughter.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is sentenced as follows:

On count 1 – burglary and stealing – detention for 18 months.

On count 2 – unlawfully using a motor vehicle – detention for 18 months.

On count 3 – dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, while excessively speeding – detention for five years.

On count 4 – manslaughter – detention for seven years.

Each of the periods of detention are to be served concurrently.

On the summary charge of driving without a licence – the defendant is reprimanded.

The convictions of counts 3 and 4 are recorded. All other convictions are not recorded.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v BXY [2023] QSC 42

Most Recent Citation

Ives v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1033

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Ives v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FCA 1033 Para 9

…At this point I should deal perhaps with the applicant’s reliance on R v BXY [2023] QSC 42. That case concerned the sentencing of a child, who had been convicted of offences including manslaughter and dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The aspect of relevance for present purposes conc…
R v GBT; Ex parte
[2025] QCA 157 Para 24

…re favourable to juveniles. There were also differences in the nature and circumstances of the offending in those comparable authorities. [2] R v BXY [2023] QSC 42; R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2020] QCA 51.…
R v Samuel (a pseudonym)
[2024] QSC 11 Para 5

…parte Attorney-General Qld [6], R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General [7]; R v AS; Ex parte Attorney-General [8] and R v Kelly [9]. [5][2023] QSC 42. [6][2023] QCA 87. [7](2020) 3 Qd R 578. [8](2004) QCA 259. [9][1999] QCA 296.…
R v YTZ; Ex parte; R v YTZ
[2023] QCA 87 Para 12

…nding that the offence was “particularly heinous”. Before the hearing of the application, the parties became aware of the sentencing in R v BXY [2023] QSC 42 in which the offender who was 14 years old, the driver of the car and affected by drugs had pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of the male passenger wi…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

R v Ponting
[2022] QCA 83 Para 8

…tionately harsh sentence being imposed for the present offending.[5] This is also reflected in s 150(1)(m) of the Act. [5]See R v Ponting [2022] QCA 83 at [65], referring to R v Aston (No 2) [1991] 1 Qd R 375 at 380-381 and Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.…
R v SDK
[2020] QCA 269 Para 6

…for example, R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174; R v Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 310; and R v SDK [2020] QCA 269.…
R v Bernard (a pseudonym)
[2020] QCA 232 Para 1

…ry all support a higher penalty in this case than five years’ detention.[22] [22]Defence counsel also referred to R v Bernard (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 232, in which a penalty of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, but I do not regard this as at all comparable, having regard both to the objective circums…
R v William (a pseudonym)
[2020] QCA 174 Para 1

…community protection is an important factor in this case. [10]See R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at 272 to 275 and R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174 at [31]. See also LCM v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 164, (2016) 262 A Crim R 1, in relation to a young offender, subsequently diagnosed with FA…
R v Patrick (a pseudonym); R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte
[2020] QCA 51 Para 23

…nt from those which apply when sentencing an adult.[1] [1]See R v Patrick (a pseudonym); R v Patrick (a pseudonym); Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2020] QCA 51 at [42]-[43] per Sofronoff P.…
R v Oliver
[2018] QCA 348 Para 14

…t the level of punishment, an even broader construction was said to be inappropriate.[16] [16] R v Breeze [1999] QCA 303 at [17] and [18]; R v Oliver [2018] QCA 348 at [32].…
R v SCU
[2017] QCA 198 Para 29

…stances, personal and general deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation and community protection.[3] But the “subject to” is important. In R v SCU [2017] QCA 198 at [151]-[153], McMurdo JA noted that there were at least two important differences between the rules for sentencing a child and those that apply to adul…
LCM v The State of Western Australia
[2016] WASCA 164 Para 1

…Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at 272 to 275 and R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174 at [31]. See also LCM v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 164, (2016) 262 A Crim R 1, in relation to a young offender, subsequently diagnosed with FASD, sentenced for manslaughter.…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2 Para 26

…fence may be committed. [20] Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 591; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [53]-[54] and Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 at [41].…
Attorney-General v Kanaveilomani
[2013] QCA 404 Para 9

…ration of s 218(2) they have been deducted from the total. [7]Compare Attorney-General v Kanaveilomani [2015] 2 Qd R 509; [2013] QCA 404 at [12] per McMurdo P, at [58], [61] and [67] per Morrison JA and at [163] per Philippides J.…
R v KAL
[2013] QCA 317 Para 2

…cumstances, although it is emphasised that this must be considered in the context of all the circumstances of a particular case.[23] [23] R v KAL [2013] QCA 317 at [32] and [36].…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 1

…posed to substance abuse and violence, as well as neglect – is also a mitigating factor, as recognised by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571. But of course as also recognised in Bugmy , as well as in other cases, whilst factors such as these may reduce an offender’s moral culpability, they may als…
R v SBU
[2011] QCA 203 Para 28

…Another case that, in my view, supports the conclusion that the Crown’s contended 12 year sentence is too high is R v SBU [2011] QCA 203. That was the term imposed, following a successful appeal, on a 14 year old offender convicted of the violent murder of a stranger, in company with another person, who was an ad…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 26

…e of the enormous range of circumstances in which the offence may be committed. [20] Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 591; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [53]-[54] and Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 at [41].…
R v. Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2007] QCA 310 Para 6

…ff P. [13]See, for example, for example, R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174; R v Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 310; and R v SDK [2020] QCA 269.…
R v Verdins
[2007] VSCA 102 Para 1

…importance of community protection. There is no question that community protection is an important factor in this case. [10]See R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at 272 to 275 and R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174 at [31]. See also LCM v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 164, (2016) 262 A Crim R 1, in r…
R v AS; ex parte
[2004] QCA 259 Para 1

…The same conclusion is reached in relation to the case of R v AS; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 259. In that case, the offender, who was just over 15 at the time of the offence, was sentenced, following a successful Attorney-General’s appeal, to five years’ detention for the manslaughter of a taxi driver. He was…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64 Para 26

…er, the penalties imposed vary widely because of the enormous range of circumstances in which the offence may be committed. [20] Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 591; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [53]-[54] and Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 at [41].…
R v Breeze
[1999] QCA 303 Para 14

…The case of R v Breeze [1999] QCA 303 (a robbery case) was also referred to by defence counsel, but is of limited assistance because it was concerned with whether violence in the context of (what is now) s 9(2A) of the Penalties and Sentences Act could include the threat of violence. Although again, because it co…
R v Barling
[1999] QCA 16 Para 13

…By way of analogy, R v Barling [1999] QCA 16 was relied upon by defence counsel. In that case, de Jersey CJ said that he would not regard the offence of arson, a property offence, as one involving violence against a person for the purposes of what was then s 9(3) (and is now s 9(2A)) of the Penalties and Sentenc…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 8

…the Act. [5]See R v Ponting [2022] QCA 83 at [65], referring to R v Aston (No 2) [1991] 1 Qd R 375 at 380-381 and Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld)
3, 6 2 mentions (from Para 6)
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 12)
Juvenile Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 12)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 28)
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 5)

CITATION:	R v BXY [2023] QSC 42
PARTIES:	THE KING v BXY (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	CS 123 of 2022 and CS 144 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2023
JUDGE:	Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:	The defendant is sentenced as follows: On count 1 – burglary and stealing – detention for 18 months. On count 2 – unlawfully using a motor vehicle – detention for 18 months. On count 3 – dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, while excessively speeding – detention for five years. On count 4 – manslaughter – detention for seven years. Each of the periods of detention are to be served concurrently. On the summary charge of driving without a licence – the defendant is reprimanded. The convictions of counts 3 and 4 are recorded. All other convictions are not recorded.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:	C Cook for the Crown J Treviño KC for the defendant A Stephens and A Chamberlain appeared for the chief executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland, for the defendant