R v CDO - [2025] QCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CDO [2025] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
CDO
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 85 of 2024
DC No 403 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 27 March 2024 (Power KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Brown JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

The application for the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of unlawful stalking with a circumstance of aggravation in the Ipswich District Court – where the applicant was sentenced to eight months’ probation with a conviction being recorded – where the aggravating circumstance was that four of the acts constituting the unlawful stalking contravened an order made by the Ipswich Magistrates Court – where the applicant had previously pleaded guilty to three offences of contravening a domestic violence order and one offence of contravening a police protection notice in the Ipswich Magistrates Court – where the applicant had previously been sentenced for the contraventions of the domestic violence orders and police protection notice – whether the applicant had been doubly punished under s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal his sentence – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge erred in ruling that the sentence would not doubly punish the appellant contrary to s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant submits that the totality of the behaviour put before the Magistrates Court constituting the punishable acts of contravening the protection orders is exactly the same as the punishable acts constituting the unlawful stalking – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant would not be doubly punished contrary to s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld)

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 16, s 359B, s 359D, s 359E
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 177, s 178
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 19

CDL v Commissioner of Police [2024] QCA 245, considered
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited
R v Conde [2016] 1 Qd R 562; [2015] QCA 063, cited
R v Dibble [2014] QCA 008, considered
R v Gordon; Ex parte Attorney-General [1975] Qd R 301, cited
R v Spies [2018] QCA 036, considered
R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330, considered

COUNSEL:

S L Kissick, with B E Taylor, for the applicant (pro bono)
C W Wallis, with A R Pinkerton, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wilson & Wilson Legal for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

MULLINS P: I agree with Wilson J.
BROWN JA: I…

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 CDO

Details

AGLC: R v CDO [2025] QCA 56
Case: [2025] QCA 56
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CDO, was convicted on his own plea of guilty to unlawful stalking with an aggravating circumstance in the Ipswich District Court. He was sentenced to eight months' probation, with a conviction being recorded. The aggravating circumstance was that four of the acts constituting the unlawful stalking contravened an order made by the Ipswich Magistrates Court. The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to three offences of contravening a domestic violence order and one offence of contravening a police protection notice in the Ipswich Magistrates Court, and had been sentenced for these contraventions. The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal his sentence, submitting that the learned sentencing judge erred in ruling that the sentence would not doubly punish him contrary to s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The applicant argued that the totality of the behaviour put before the Magistrates Court constituting the punishable acts of contravening the protection orders was exactly the same as the punishable acts constituting the unlawful stalking.

The court considered the legal issue of whether the applicant had been doubly punished under s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The court found that the applicant's argument did not establish that the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the applicant would not be doubly punished. The court held that the acts of unlawful stalking were separate and distinct from the contraventions of the protection orders, and that the applicant had not been doubly punished. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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 CDO [2025] QCA 56
PARTIES:	R v CDO (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 85 of 2024 DC No 403 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 27 March 2024 (Power KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Brown JA and Wilson J
ORDER:	The application for the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of unlawful stalking with a circumstance of aggravation in the Ipswich District Court – where the applicant was sentenced to eight months’ probation with a conviction being recorded – where the aggravating circumstance was that four of the acts constituting the unlawful stalking contravened an order made by the Ipswich Magistrates Court – where the applicant had previously pleaded guilty to three offences of contravening a domestic violence order and one offence of contravening a police protection notice in the Ipswich Magistrates Court – where the applicant had previously been sentenced for the contraventions of the domestic violence orders and police protection notice – whether the applicant had been doubly punished under s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld) CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal his sentence – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge erred in ruling that the sentence would not doubly punish the appellant contrary to s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant submits that the totality of the behaviour put before the Magistrates Court constituting the punishable acts of contravening the protection orders is exactly the same as the punishable acts constituting the unlawful stalking – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant would not be doubly punished contrary to s 16 of the Criminal Code (Qld) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 16, s 359B, s 359D, s 359E Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 177, s 178 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 19 CDL v Commissioner of Police [2024] QCA 245, considered Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited R v Conde [2016] 1 Qd R 562; [2015] QCA 063, cited R v Dibble [2014] QCA 008, considered R v Gordon; Ex parte Attorney-General [1975] Qd R 301, cited R v Spies [2018] QCA 036, considered R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330, considered
COUNSEL:	S L Kissick, with B E Taylor, for the applicant (pro bono) C W Wallis, with A R Pinkerton, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wilson & Wilson Legal for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent