R v GbR

[2025] QCA 71

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GBR [2025] QCA 71

PARTIES:

R
v
GBR
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 6 of 2025
DC No 375 of 2024
DC No 384 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 12 December 2024 (Loury KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2025

JUDGES:

Boddice and Brown JJA and Crowley J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal be granted.

2.   The appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ detention for malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – where the applicant submits the sentencing judge failed to have regard to relevant considerations regarding his mental health conditions – where submissions on such matters were not made at first instance – where the sentencing remarks indicate that the sentencing judge did take such matters into account – whether error in the sentencing judge’s discretion can be established where relevant considerations were not drawn to the sentencing judge’s attention at first instance

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102, cited
Romero v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 486; [2011] VSCA 45, cited
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44, cited

COUNSEL:

K M Hillard, with B E McKenzie, for the applicant
B M White for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. BODDICE JA:  I agree with Crowley J.

2. BROWN JA:  I agree with Justice Crowley.

3. CROWLEY J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 5 years’ detention, with an order for supervised release after serving 60 per cent of that term, for an offence of malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm imposed by a judge of the Childrens Court of Queensland.

4. The applicant was also sentenced by the judge to concurrent terms of six months’ imprisonment for two summary offences of serious assault police.  The details of those latter offences are presently immaterial.

5. The single ground of appeal contained in the original application for leave to appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  At the hearing of the appeal, the applicant abandoned that ground and was granted leave to argue the following amended grounds of appeal:

   “The Sentence Judge erred in failing to have regard to relevant considerations, including one (1) or more of the following:

   (a)The Applicant Child’s mental health diagnosis;

   (b)That the Applicant Child’s offending had occurred while untreated for his mental health diagnosis and/or condition; and/or

   (c)The Applicant Child’s actual and prospective rehabilitation arising from his mental health treatment.”

6. The applicant contends that leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal be allowed,…