R v DCQ

Case [2025] QCA 146

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DCQ [2025] QCA 146

PARTIES:

R
v
DCQ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 60 of 2024
DC No 175 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2024 (Byrne KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 May 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Bond JA and Callaghan J

ORDERS:

1.   The applications for leave to adduce further evidence are refused.

2.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – FRESH EVIDENCE AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER SENTENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for serious violent and sexual offences against his former partner – where an automatic declaration of a serious violent offence followed – where at the sentencing hearing an expert report from a forensic psychologist was relied upon – where post-sentence the applicant commenced psychological counselling with a clinical psychologist – where the later psychologist observed that there were diagnostic possibilities that were not raised at the applicant’s sentence – where the applicant’s solicitor then arranged for a psychiatrist to assess the applicant and provide a report – where the applicant gave a substantially different report of his childhood, and social isolation, to the later psychologist and the psychiatrist – where the psychiatrist noted the possibility of various conditions including mild autism, ADHD and unspecified trauma-related disorder, which may have played some role in the applicant’s offending – where the applicant applies for leave to adduce new evidence, being the evidence of the later psychologist, the psychiatrist, his solicitor and himself, in order to establish a ground for the grant of leave to appeal against his sentence, that the sentencing process miscarried because the sentencing judge did not have all the information that was relevant to the formulation of the appropriate sentence – consideration of the appropriate test to be applied on an application for leave to adduce new evidence on an application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether, if the new evidence were not received, there would be a miscarriage of justice – whether leave should be granted for the applicant to appeal the sentence

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2)
Criminal Code (Qld), s 564(3A), s 668D(1)(c), s 668E(3), s 671B(1)(d), s 671B(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(10A), s 12A, s 161A

Alessawi and Snowball v R [2025] VSCA 23, considered
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25, considered
Pajares v Commissioner of Police[2025] QCA 9, cited
R v Benjamin (2012) 224 A Crim R 40; [2012] QCA 188, cited
R v Cain[2010] QCA 373, cited
R v Flew[2008] QCA 290, cited
R v Free; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA…

Continue reading R v DCQ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DCQ [2025] QCA 146
Case
[2025] QCA 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, DCQ, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court for serious violent and sexual offences against his former partner. The applicant had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with an automatic declaration of a serious violent offence. The appeal focused on the applicant’s contention that the sentencing process miscarried because the sentencing judge did not have all the relevant information regarding his mental health conditions. DCQ sought to introduce new evidence from a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, and his solicitor, to support his application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the new evidence could be admitted and whether it would establish a miscarriage of justice if not received. The court needed to determine the appropriate test for granting leave to adduce new evidence on an application for leave to appeal against a sentence. The court also had to consider whether there was a miscarriage of justice if the new evidence were not received.

The court found that the new evidence, including the reports from the psychiatrist and clinical psychologist, did not establish a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the sentencing judge had already taken into account all the relevant matters in arriving at the sentence, including the premeditated and calculated nature of the offences, the impact on the complainant, and the applicant’s otherwise strong and helpful role in society. The court concluded that the new evidence did not provide a sufficient ground for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court refused both the application for leave to adduce further evidence and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

In summary, the court held that the applicant’s application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications for leave to adduce further evidence are refused.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In structuring the sentence, the sentencing judge noted that all the offences occurred in the course of the one incident, and the overall criminality would be reflected in the penalty to be imposed on count 6 (the penile rape), with lesser concurrent terms to be imposed on the other counts.[7] In explaining the reasons for arriving at the sentences imposed, including 10 years’ imprisonment for count 6, the sentencing judge said:“Bearing in mind the premeditated and calculated nature of your offending, that it was the culmination of a longer period of covert surveillance driven by a jealousy that cannot be justified, that you made some, albeit not at all successful, attempt to hide your offending, the impact on the complainant and recognising the matters in your favour, particularly the plea of guilty, which, I accept, was a timely one, given the discontinuance of charges by the prosecution, and [giving] particular weight to the fact that there is this dichotomy that I have spoken of in which you are otherwise a strong and helpful member of society, the sentences to be imposed are as follows…”[7]An approach approved in R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63.The first application for leave to adduce new evidence Initially, in March 2024, the applicant applied for leave to appeal the sentence imposed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had made the specific error of failing to take into account his guilty plea and cooperation with the administration of justice. The applicant engaged a new solicitor, Ms Robinson, in May 2024. Ms Robinson recommended to the applicant that he receive ongoing psychological counselling with a clinical psychologist, Ms Bardsley. The applicant did that. In August 2024, Ms Bardsley contacted the applicant’s solicitor and said that, having undertaken psychometric testing of the applicant she considered there were “diagnostic possibilities” that were not raised at the applicant’s sentence. In August 2024, Ms Robinson arranged for Dr Kovacevic, psychiatrist, to assess the applicant and provide a report. The examination took place on 23 August 2024, by video link, and a report was prepared by Dr Kovacevic on 20 September 2024. In December 2024, the applicant filed an application for leave to adduce the evidence comprising the report of Dr Kovacevic and evidence from Ms Robinson, as to the explanation for why the psychiatric evidence was not led at first instance. The explanation, according to Ms Robinson’s affidavit, seems simply to be that no thought had previously been given to obtaining a report from a psychiatrist. The applicant had never previously engaged with a psychologist or a psychiatrist. The report of Dr Kovacevic, dated 20 September 2024, records the documents that he was provided with prior to his examination of the applicant. The documents provided do not include the applicant’s criminal history, nor the 15 character references. The applicant told Dr Kovacevic that he had been getting counselling with a psychologist for the past four months (that is, since his sentencing hearing) and that the psychologist had “arrived at the conclusion that he had autism level 1 to level 2 disorder, as well as possible attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)”. The applicant reported to Dr Kovacevic that he was feeling chronically depressed, and experiencing considerable anxiety.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.