R v Cdu - [2025] QCA 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CDU [2025] QCA 145

PARTIES:

R
v
CDU
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 101 of 2020
DC No 825 of 2020
DC No 1547 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 May 2020 (Rafter SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Boddice and Bradley JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal sentence granted.

2.   Leave to appeal sentence granted.

3.   Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, four counts of common assault, 18 counts of rape, one count of torture, one count of deprivation of liberty, two counts of malicious act with intent, one count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, four counts of sexual assault, four counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of grievous bodily harm – where all counts were domestic violence offences – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle, three counts of wilful damage, two counts of unlawfully entering a vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence with property damage, one count of serious assault with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of burglary, one count of robbery and seven summary charges – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of one count of malicious act with intent and four counts of rape – where the applicant was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for one of the remaining counts of rape, 20 years’ imprisonment for another of the remaining counts of rape and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining counts, other than the one count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, the four counts of sexual assault, the four counts of supplying dangerous drug and one summary charge – where 237 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared time already served under the sentence – where the convictions of torture, malicious act with intent and 14 counts of rape were convictions of a serious violent offence – whether the imposition of life imprisonment was excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in not giving any mitigating effect to the applicant’s remorse, guilty pleas and his notification to ambulance services that had the effect of saving the complainant’s life

R v Hornby[1996] QCA 446, cited
R v Keenan (2009) 197 A Crim R 59; [2009] QCA 236, cited
R v Mahony & Shenfield[2012] QCA 366, cited
R v Mizner[2019] QCA 198, cited
R v NT (2018) 273 A Crim R 153; [2018] QCA 106, cited
R v Rankmore; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2002] QCA 492, cited
R v Ray[2011] QCA…

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 Cdu

Details

AGLC: R v Cdu [2025] QCA 145
Case: [2025] QCA 145
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cdu involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to a wide range of offences, including multiple counts of assault, rape, torture, deprivation of liberty, sexual assault, and drug supply, all of which were domestic violence offences. The applicant was also found guilty of additional charges such as dangerous operation of a vehicle, wilful damage, burglary, and robbery. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for one count of malicious act with intent and four counts of rape, along with significant concurrent and non-concurrent terms for other offences. The sentencing judge considered the severity of the offences, particularly the prolonged period of sustained brutality and the sadistic nature of the crimes, in determining the appropriate sentence. The applicant challenged the sentence, arguing it was excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his remorse, guilty pleas, and actions that saved the complainant's life.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the imposition of life imprisonment was excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving any mitigating effect to the applicant's remorse, guilty pleas, and his notification to ambulance services that ultimately saved the complainant's life. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed, and if the sentencing judge correctly assessed and applied the relevant mitigating factors. The court also considered the principles of deterrence and denunciation in the context of domestic violence, as well as the broader impact of domestic violence on victims, their families, and the community.

The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the severity and depravity of the crimes. It found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the applicant's guilty pleas and other mitigating factors but ultimately determined that the gravity of the offences warranted the imposition of life imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases of domestic violence, and held that the sentence reflected the need to protect the community from the applicant's violent conduct. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

ORDERS:
1. Leave to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal sentence granted.
2. Leave to appeal sentence granted.
3. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal sentence granted.

2. Leave to appeal sentence granted.

3. Appeal against sentence 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

The sentencing judge found:“The issue for determination is whether your offending is so grave that it warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty: Markarian v The Queen at 372 [31]. The nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal are to be considered. An offence may be assessed as so grave as to warrant the maximum penalty, notwithstanding that it is possible to imagine an even worse case: The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256 at 265-266 [18].This is a particularly serious instance of domestic violence. The prolonged period of sustained brutality, the sexual depravity and sadistic nature of the offending are factors that make this a grave case of domestic violence. Your pleas of guilty are taken into account, but that does not diminish the seriousness of your offending. The anonymous 000 call seems to have been made out of self-interest, rather than because of any genuine concern for the complainant. The only reasons put forward for your heinous conduct are that you lapsed into taking methylamphetamine in May 2017 and held a belief that the complainant was involved in the drive-by shooting at your residence. You also seemed to be obsessed with the notion that the complainant had sexual relationships with other men.As was explained by the Court of Appeal in R v Major; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] 1 Qd R 465 at 481 [53]:The dreadful effects of prolonged episodes of domestic violence are notorious… Deterrence, both personal and general, is an important factor in sentencing in domestic violence cases. So too is denunciation. The community through the courts seeks sentences which show the public disapprobation of such conduct. The effects of domestic violence go beyond the trauma suffered by victims, survivors and their children to their extended families, and friends.In your case, the protection of the community is an important factor to be taken into account. Of course, a sentence should not be increased beyond what is proportionate to the crime, to extend the period of protection of the community.For the period of 23 days, you engaged in systematic acts of degradation and torture. The victim was a young woman who had once cared for you and provided support when you faced serious charges in the Supreme Court. You took pleasure in the infliction of pain. Your brutality took her to the edge of death. It was concern for yourself that ultimately led to her survival. The victim’s life will never be the same. Yet, despite the terrible ordeal she has suffered, she displays courage, dignity and resilience.I have carefully considered whether your pleas of guilty and anonymous 000 call are factors that should result in a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. A plea of guilty may result in a reduction of sentence. The reduction may be made having regard to the time at which the offender pleaded guilty or informed the prosecution of an intention to plead guilty. The gravity of your offending is such that a reduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence of life imprisonment should not be made. Your anonymous 000 call cannot be regarded as being of the same nature as the intervention by the offender in R v Mahony & Shenfield [2012] QCA 366, which led to the life of a child being saved.A consideration of all relevant factors leads me to the conclusion that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate for the offences that involved a high level of violence or depravity. I have therefore concluded that the gravity of your offending, reflected in the following counts, justifies the imposition of the maximum penalties:• count 10 – torture: 14 years imprisonment;• counts 12 and 21 – malicious act with intent: life imprisonment;• counts 24, 29, 30, 33 and 34 – rape: life imprisonment.The offence of torture involved sustained cruelty to the complainant and included daily forceful rape at the [suburban unit]. The torture count does not include the rape counts specifically charged in the indictment. The offences in count 11 (deprivation of liberty), count 13 (sexual assault with a circumstance of aggravation), counts 20, 22, 25 and 32 (sexual assault), count 36 (grievous bodily harm), and counts 26, 37, 38 and 39 (supplying a dangerous drug) have been relied upon as particulars of the offence of torture. As the punishment for those offences will be reflected in the sentence imposed for torture, I intend to adopt the approach in R v R and S; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2000] 2 Qd R 413 of recording convictions for those offences and imposing no further penalty.The offences of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure (counts 12 and 21) are so serious as to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.The offence of rape in count 24 is a particularly serious example of rape by anal intercourse. The complainant’s face was badly injured. After making her perform oral sex, you inserted your penis into her anus, which was bleeding. You recorded the anal rape on your phone.The offences of rape in counts 29 and 30 occurred at [a city motel]. The complainant’s burns were peeling, and her skin was rotting. The complainant was in pain. Her lip was split. Count 29 involved vaginal intercourse. The complainant’s vagina was sore and swollen from the things done to her at the unit. You then penetrated her anus with your penis, saying you were going to stretch her anus. She told you she was in pain because of her burns, but you continued.The circumstances of counts 33 and 34 have been outlined. The offences involved degrading acts of anal intercourse, following which the complainant was forced to lick your penis, which was covered in excrement.I intend to impose sentences for the other offences that I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.”[3]Consideration[3]AB 134/33–AB 136/25.Ground 1

CITATION:	R v CDU [2025] QCA 145
PARTIES:	R v CDU (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 101 of 2020 DC No 825 of 2020 DC No 1547 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 May 2020 (Rafter SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice and Bradley JJA
ORDERS:	1. Leave to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal sentence granted. 2. Leave to appeal sentence granted. 3. Appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, four counts of common assault, 18 counts of rape, one count of torture, one count of deprivation of liberty, two counts of malicious act with intent, one count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, four counts of sexual assault, four counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of grievous bodily harm – where all counts were domestic violence offences – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle, three counts of wilful damage, two counts of unlawfully entering a vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence with property damage, one count of serious assault with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of burglary, one count of robbery and seven summary charges – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of one count of malicious act with intent and four counts of rape – where the applicant was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for one of the remaining counts of rape, 20 years’ imprisonment for another of the remaining counts of rape and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining counts, other than the one count of sexual assault with the circumstance of aggravation, the four counts of sexual assault, the four counts of supplying dangerous drug and one summary charge – where 237 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared time already served under the sentence – where the convictions of torture, malicious act with intent and 14 counts of rape were convictions of a serious violent offence – whether the imposition of life imprisonment was excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in not giving any mitigating effect to the applicant’s remorse, guilty pleas and his notification to ambulance services that had the effect of saving the complainant’s life R v Hornby[1996] QCA 446, cited R v Keenan (2009) 197 A Crim R 59; [2009] QCA 236, cited R v Mahony & Shenfield[2012] QCA 366, cited R v Mizner[2019] QCA 198, cited R v NT (2018) 273 A Crim R 153; [2018] QCA 106, cited R v Rankmore; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2002] QCA 492, cited R v Ray[2011] QCA…