R v Cox

Case [2025] QCA 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cox [2025] QCA 181

PARTIES:

R
v
COX, Darcy Owen
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 213 of 2025
DC No 426 of 2025

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 9 September 2025 (McCarthy KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Doyle JJA and Crowley J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended after serving three months’ for an operational period of two years – where the applicant submitted that the imposition of a custodial component rendered the sentence manifestly excessive – where the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

J K Kennedy for the applicant
M A Gawrych for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Beavon Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. THE COURT:  On 9 September 2025 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, an offence which carried with it a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

  2. The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months’ imprisonment, for an operational period of two years.  The applicant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of one year.

  3. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the sole ground that it was manifestly excessive.  He did not cavil with the head sentence.  Rather his argument was that any sentence which required him to serve any period in actual custody was manifestly excessive.

  4. For reasons which follow, the application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.

    The facts of the offending

  5. The applicant was a 66-year-old heavy vehicle truck driver at the time of the offending.

  6. On 3 April 2023, at about 6.30 am, the applicant was driving his truck northbound on the Pacific Motorway in an area which had five northbound lanes.  The far-left lane was an exit only lane.  The second to left lane allowed drivers to exit to the left or to continue straight on.  The speed limit on the motorway was 100 km per hour and reduced to 70 km per hour on the off ramp.

  7. The complainant was on his way to work in the second lane from the left.  The traffic was congested on approach to the exit, such that the cars in the two left exit lanes were either stationary or slowing down approaching those cars which were stationary in front of them.  Of the three vehicles in front of the complainant, the furthest away,…

Continue reading R v Cox

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cox [2025] QCA 181
Case
[2025] QCA 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cox involves an appeal against sentence where the applicant, a 66-year-old truck driver, pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended after serving three months for an operational period of two years. The central issue was whether the imposition of a custodial component rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive because it included a custodial component, while the Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the relevant authorities, noting that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the arguments and concluded that a term of actual imprisonment was necessary to reflect denunciation, punishment, and general deterrence. The court found that the sentencing judge’s decision was not unreasonable or plainly unjust and that there was no misapplication of principle. The court emphasized that while a wholly suspended sentence might have been possible, the inclusion of a custodial component was justified under the circumstances.

Based on the reasoning provided, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found no basis to infer that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court upheld the original sentence, confirming that the decision to include a custodial component was a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

For reasons which follow, the application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.The facts of the offending The applicant was a 66-year-old heavy vehicle truck driver at the time of the offending. On 3 April 2023, at about 6.30 am, the applicant was driving his truck northbound on the Pacific Motorway in an area which had five northbound lanes. The far-left lane was an exit only lane. The second to left lane allowed drivers to exit to the left or to continue straight on. The speed limit on the motorway was 100 km per hour and reduced to 70 km per hour on the off ramp. The complainant was on his way to work in the second lane from the left. The traffic was congested on approach to the exit, such that the cars in the two left exit lanes were either stationary or slowing down approaching those cars which were stationary in front of them. Of the three vehicles in front of the complainant, the furthest away, a truck, was stationary. The next, a car, had its indicator on to take the left exit and was also stationary in the traffic. The third, the car immediately in front of the complainant’s car, had also stopped, although the driver might have taken her foot off the brake to start moving forward. The complainant had slowed behind that car and was moving forward slowly behind it. In the meantime, the applicant was travelling behind the complainant in the second lane from the left. He did not stop, brake or slow down as he came towards the stopped line of traffic. He struck the complainant’s car from behind at approximately 68 km/h, causing a chain of collisions. The impact caused catastrophic damage to the complainant’s car, rendering it unrecognizable. The truck struck the car’s boot with such force that the rear number plate was pushed up to the front seats, leaving the rear seats entirely obliterated and half the chassis exposed forward of the rear tyres. Other vehicles suffered lesser damage. The complainant’s injuries were life threatening. He was bleeding from a head injury and was unresponsive but breathing. He was cut from his car and transported to hospital where an immediate craniotomy was required to evacuate the subdural haematoma. Without that treatment, he would have died. He also suffered a C3 vertebrae fracture, injury of the ligaments at the cranio-cervical junction, and a small bilateral pneumothorax. He was kept asleep for several days following the collision and not extubated until the fifth postoperative day. His spinal injuries were managed with a hard collar. The bilateral pneumothorax was managed non-surgically. The complainant was discharged on 21 April 2023. The sentencing judge was told that there was no suggestion that the complainant would suffer ongoing ill effects because of his injuries. The driver of the car in front of the complainant was also injured but not as severely as the complainant. No one else was hurt. The applicant was shaken up after the collision but otherwise uninjured. He stayed at the scene until police arrived. He told witnesses, “I didn’t even see them” and “I’m never driving again.” There was otherwise no explanation for what had happened. There was no defect in his truck which could have contributed to the collision. The applicant was transported to the Princess Alexandra Hospital in a state of shock and to have a blood sample taken. The results of the blood sample were unremarkable.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In our view, the applicant’s argument was untenable. After having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the sentencing judge explicitly and carefully considered the applicant’s submission that the sentence should be structured so as not to include a custodial component. He concluded that denunciation, punishment, and general deterrence justified the rejection of that submission. We cannot conclude his decision to take that course was one which was unreasonable or plainly unjust. There is no basis to infer misapplication of principle.Conclusion The application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The sentencing judge then carefully and unremarkably recorded the circumstances identified in the benchmark authorities to which his attention had been drawn. He expressed his conclusion in these terms:“Your case was, however, a case in which your careless conduct was driving at a speed excessive in the circumstances as you approached stationary vehicles with immediate and catastrophic resultant injuries upon [the complainant].I have considered carefully the submission made before me that denunciation, punishment, and general deterrence can be reflected by a head sentence of a term of imprisonment without actually requiring you to go to jail. I am cognisant that if you are jailed, you will have to spend some time away from your family who reside primarily in New South Wales. I am also cognisant that in any term of imprisonment actually being required to be served, you will be taken away from your wife who needs you and needs your support.I am satisfied in the circumstances of your case, however, that some term of actual imprisonment should be a component of your sentence. I am minded not to require that component of actual jail time to be as significant as these in other authorities aside that of the authority of R v Danter.My order is then as follows. A conviction is recorded. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. I order that that term of imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of three months’ imprisonment. You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of two years if you are to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment. I am going to accede to your counsel’s submission that you are only disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for a period of 12 months.”Consideration of the ground of appeal The applicant’s argument before this Court accepted, correctly, that the benchmark authorities placed before the Court below and relied on again in this Court well justified the imposition of the 2-year head sentence. His challenge was solely directed to the custodial component of the sentence. He submitted that it was the imposition of that component of the sentence which rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The High Court observed in R v Pham:“Appellate intervention on the ground of manifest excessiveness or inadequacy is not warranted unless, having regard to all of the relevant sentencing factors, including the degree to which the impugned sentence differs from sentences that have been imposed in comparable cases, the appellate court is driven to conclude that there must have been some misapplication of principle.”[5][5]R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550 at 599 [28](7). In the present case, one could well accept that it would have been within the ambit of a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion for the sentencing judge to have decided to impose a wholly suspended sentence. But it is an entirely different proposition to submit that failure to take that course was a choice which justified the inference that there must have been some misapplication of principle.