R v DBY

[2022] QCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBY [2022] QCA 20

PARTIES:

R
v
DBY
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 286 of 2020
CA No 65 of 2021
SC No 641 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
Miscellaneous Application – Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 2 August 2019 (Bowskill J); Date of Sentence: 8 October 2019 (Brown J)

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2021

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Bond JJA and Mazza AJA

ORDERS:

In CA No 286 of 2020:

1.   Refuse the application for an extension of time.

2.   Refuse the application to adduce additional evidence.

3.   Refuse the application for leave to appeal sentence.

In CA No 65 of 2021:

1.   Refuse the application for an extension of time.

2.   Refuse the application to adduce additional evidence.

3.   Dismiss the appeal against conviction.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant contested that at the time of entering her plea she was of unsound mind – where there was no evidence capable of demonstrating that at the time of entering the plea the applicant was not of sound mind – where there were no steps taken to withdraw the plea – where it was in the applicant’s interest to enter the plea – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where there was a causative link between the applicant’s mental impairment and the offending – where the learned trial judge noted that the applicant’s moral culpability was reduced because of her mental impairment – whether the learned trial judge sufficiently moderated the sentence to reflect the foregoing

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant said that serious domestic violence had been perpetrated upon her, and contended that this should have been treated as a mitigating factor – where defence counsel did not raise the alleged domestic violence as a mitigating factor – where the applicant was an unreliable historian – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 27

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254, applied
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38, applied
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, considered
R v Dobie [2011] 1 Qd R 367; [2009] QCA 394, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on her own behalf
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McMURDO JA:  I agree with Mazza AJA.

2. BOND JA:  I have had the…