R v Dco - [2025] QCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DCO [2025] QCA 110

PARTIES:

R
v
DCO
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2024
DC No 32 of 2023
DC No 33 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Roma – Date of Sentence: 19 October 2023 (Barlow KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Boddice JJA and Sullivan J

ORDER:

Leave to appeal sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of one count of burglary by breaking in the night (count 1), one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed (count 2) and one count of grievous bodily harm (count 3) – where the grievous bodily harm offence was a domestic violence offence – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on count 1, imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months on count 2 and imprisonment for 5 years on count 3 – where it was declared that the 422 days spent in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentence – where the applicant was required to serve 80 per cent of the sentences prior to being eligible for release on parole – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, applied
R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, considered
R v Taki[2015] QCA 60, considered

COUNSEL:

L F Heaney for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice JA and with the order proposed by his Honour.
BODDICE JA: On 16 October 2023, the applicant pleaded not guilty to one count of burglary by breaking in the night (count 1), one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed (count 2) and one count of grievous bodily harm (count 3). The latter offence was a domestic violence offence.
On 18 October 2023, a jury found the applicant guilty on each count.
On 19 October 2023, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on count 1, imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months on count 2 and imprisonment for 5 years on count 3. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months on a count of serious assault, to which he pleaded guilty on 19 October 2023.
The sentences for counts 1 and 2 were ordered to be served concurrently. The sentence for count 3 was ordered to be served cumulatively on those sentences. The sentence of imprisonment for serious assault was ordered to be served cumulatively on all other terms.
It was declared that the 422 days spent in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already…

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 Dco

Details

AGLC: R v Dco [2025] QCA 110
Case: [2025] QCA 110
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dco involves an applicant appealing against his sentence following convictions for burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on count 1, 3 years and 6 months on count 2, and 5 years on count 3, with the 422 days spent in pre-sentence custody deemed time already served. The applicant must serve 80% of the sentences before being eligible for parole. The applicant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the totality of the applicant's offending and his personal circumstances, including his criminal history, the nature of the offences, the lack of remorse, and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court noted that the applicant's criminality on 22 August 2022 included two entirely separate incidents of gratuitous violence with lifelong effects on each victim, which warranted a conclusion that the sentences for those offences should be served cumulatively.

The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The applicant's criminality on 22 August 2022 included two entirely separate incidents of gratuitous violence with lifelong effects on each victim. Those circumstances amply warranted a conclusion that the sentences for those offences ought to be served cumulatively. The court found that the overall totality of the sentences imposed was significant but fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The applicant's criminality was engaged in weeks after his most recent release from custody, and the context of the applicant having previously served substantial periods of imprisonment for offences of violence meant that denunciation and deterrence, both general and personal, loomed large.

Leave to appeal sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

The applicant seeks leave to appeal sentence. Should leave be granted, the applicant relies upon one ground; that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.[1][1]A second ground was abandoned at the hearing.Background Counts 1, 2 and 3 were all committed on 22 August 2022. Each was contained on one indictment. The offence of serious assault was committed on 23 August 2022. It was contained on a separate indictment. At the time of the commission of the offences, the applicant was 42 years of age. He was 43 years of age at the date of sentence. The applicant had a relevant criminal history. It contained numerous entries for property, drug and violent offending. The applicant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for manslaughter and grievous bodily harm with intent. Both offences attracted a serious violent offence declaration.Offences Counts 1 and 2 were committed in the early hours of 22 August 2023, somewhere between midnight and about 1.00 am. The applicant was wearing dark clothes, including a dark hoodie and a mask, when he gained entry to the house of the complainant by breaking open a door which was locked (count 1). The applicant was carrying a machete. As soon as the applicant opened the door, he attacked the male complainant by swinging the blade of the machete at the top of the complainant’s head. The blow caused a laceration and possible damage to his skull (count 2). The attack only stopped because, notwithstanding his injuries, the complainant managed to push the door shut against the applicant, leading him to leave the premises. Count 3 was committed on the evening of 22 August 2023. The applicant had an argument with his step-father, with whom he was staying. The applicant kicked the step-father very hard to his right leg, fracturing both bones in that leg (count 3). When the step-father fell to the ground, the applicant continued to assault him before leaving the premises. Police eventually located the applicant at other premises in the early hours of 23 August 2022. When police approached the applicant, he threw a glass in the direction of police, striking one of them on his right finger causing bruising and swelling. This act constituted the offence of serious assault.Sentence hearing The Crown submitted that the applicant’s offending in respect of counts 1 and 2 involved premeditated conduct. Violence was used in the presence of children. That violence had significant impacts on the complainant. The Crown submitted that the offending, the subject of count 3, was unprovoked and committed in the context of a domestic relationship. There was a physical imbalance between the complainant and the applicant. The applicant continued to assault the complainant when the complainant was on the ground and left the complainant without rendering assistance. The complainant had ongoing consequences which had significantly reduced his quality of life. The Crown submitted that a notional global head sentence of 11 years 6 months’ imprisonment was an appropriate sentence. Declarations were sought in respect of counts 2 and 3 being convictions of a serious violent offence.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Having regard to all of those factors, the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge evidenced a proper consideration of totality principles and of the consequence of a declaration of the commission of serious violent offences. The moderation of the sentences on count 1 and serious assault gave due regard to those principles.Conclusion The sentences imposed do not evidence any misapplication of principle. They were neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive.Orders I would order:1.Leave to appeal sentence be refused. SULLIVAN J: I agree with Boddice JA’s reasons and with the order proposed by his Honour.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Allowing for totality and the plea of guilty to serious assault, the sentencing judge reduced the sentence on count 1 to 5 years’ imprisonment and reduced sentence on serious assault to 4 months’ imprisonment.Consideration To succeed on a ground of manifest excess, the applicant must establish more than that the sentence is different or markedly different to comparable yardsticks. The sentence must be shown to be of such a nature as to evidence misapplication of principle, or warrant a conclusion that it is unreasonable or plainly unjust.[2] [2]Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520. The applicant submits that the sentence imposed for count 3 was manifestly excessive. A sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was unreasonable and plainly unjust. No weapon was used and the injuries were not life threatening. Further, the head sentence for that count had to be ameliorated to take into account that it was to be served cumulatively and that the applicant would be required to serve 80 per cent of the sentence as a consequence of the declaration that it was a conviction of a serious violent offence. The applicant further submits that whilst the sentencing judge ameliorated the sentences on count 1 and serious assault to reflect that they were to be served cumulatively, the reduction was insufficient to reflect principles of totality. The overall sentence structure required the applicant to serve 80 per cent of the total period of imprisonment imposed on the remaining counts, which were the subject of a declaration of a serious violent offence. Whilst the overall totality of the sentences imposed was significant, a consideration of the applicant’s offending and his personal circumstances, supports a conclusion that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. They fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. First, the applicant’s criminality on 22 August 2022 included two entirely separate incidents of gratuitous violence, with lifelong effects on each victim. Those circumstances amply warranted a conclusion that the sentences for those offences ought to be served cumulatively. Similar consideration warrants an order that the sentence for serious assault also be served cumulatively. Second, the applicant’s criminality was engaged in weeks after his most recent release from custody. That circumstance, in the context of the applicant having previously served substantial periods of imprisonment for offences of violence, meant that denunciation and deterrence, both general and personal, loomed large. Third, the applicant exhibited no remorse and he had limited cooperation with the administration of justice, namely a plea of guilty to serious assault. Fourth, the criminality associated with the applicant’s conduct in the commission of counts 2 and 3 was of a nature warranting the declaration of convictions of serious violence offences. Both offences involved not only the infliction of gratuitous violence. In the case of the former, a machete was used to attack the occupant of the home, the applicant had entered in the nighttime. In the case of the latter, the attack on his step-father had the aggravating feature that it was a domestic violence offence. Both attacks continued notwithstanding obvious injuries to each victim.

CITATION:	R v DCO [2025] QCA 110
PARTIES:	R v DCO (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 168 of 2024 DC No 32 of 2023 DC No 33 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Roma – Date of Sentence: 19 October 2023 (Barlow KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2025
JUDGES:	Bond and Boddice JJA and Sullivan J
ORDER:	Leave to appeal sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of one count of burglary by breaking in the night (count 1), one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed (count 2) and one count of grievous bodily harm (count 3) – where the grievous bodily harm offence was a domestic violence offence – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on count 1, imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months on count 2 and imprisonment for 5 years on count 3 – where it was declared that the 422 days spent in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentence – where the applicant was required to serve 80 per cent of the sentences prior to being eligible for release on parole – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, applied R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, considered R v Taki[2015] QCA 60, considered
COUNSEL:	L F Heaney for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent