R v HCX - [2025] QCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCX [2025] QCA 100

PARTIES:

R
v
HCX
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 265 of 2023
DC No 122 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Sentence: 5 February 2019 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2025

JUDGES:

Bond, Flanagan and Bradley JJA

ORDER:

The application for extension of the time within which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of rape and three offences of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12 – where the applicant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment – where the application for extension of time was filed over four years after the deadline to apply for leave to appeal against sentence had expired – where there was no good reason for the lengthy delay in bringing the application – where the proposed ground of appeal was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the refusal to grant an extension would result in a miscarriage of justice – where the applicant had poor prospects of persuading the Court that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – where the application for extension of time should be refused

Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9

R v Free; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, applied
R v Muirhead (2019) 279 A Crim R 510; [2019] QCA 244, applied
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied

COUNSEL:

D M Caruana for the applicant (pro bono)
M A Gawrych for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOND JA: On 5 February 2019 in the District Court at Bundaberg the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one offence of rape and three offences of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12. Each count was alleged to have the aggravating feature that it was a domestic violence offence. He was sentenced on the same day.
The sentencing judge described the offending in these terms:
“The child … was your eight year old niece. The offending was all in one episode but you had been sexually interested in this child for some months. You had been banned from the house at night because you had been caught peeping through her windows. You devised a plan, you prepared for it and you successfully carried it out with stealth and cunning. Under the cover of darkness, you crept through the neighbouring properties to the back of a house to get to [the complainant child’s] bedroom.
You had brought with you a computer with pornographic…

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 HCX

Details

AGLC: R v HCX [2025] QCA 100
Case: [2025] QCA 100
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v HCX, the applicant had previously pleaded guilty to one offence of rape and three offences of indecent treatment of a child under 16. The applicant was subsequently sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. The applicant filed an application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence, which was submitted over four years after the deadline for appealing the sentence had expired. The primary ground for the appeal was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the lengthy delay in bringing the application warranted an extension of time and whether the refusal to grant an extension would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's proposed grounds for appeal had a reasonable chance of success and whether the lengthy delay in filing the application for an extension of time could be justified. The court noted that the applicant had poor prospects of persuading the court that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court highlighted that there was no good reason provided for the substantial delay in filing the application for an extension of time. The court found that the applicant's prospects of success on appeal were poor, and the delay in filing the application was long and unexplained. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence had very poor prospects and the length of the delay was considerable and unexplained. Given these factors, the application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Bond JA was joined by Flanagan JA and Bradley JA in this decision. The court's final order was that the application for extension of the time within which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for extension of the time within which to file an 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Having regard to these features, the applicant has very poor prospects of persuading the Court that the 11-year sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.Conclusion The application for leave to appeal against sentence has poor prospects and the length of the delay is long and unexplained. It is not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The application for extension of the time within which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused. FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Bond JA. BRADLEY JA: I agree with Bond JA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v HCX [2025] QCA 100
PARTIES:	R v HCX (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 265 of 2023 DC No 122 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Sentence: 5 February 2019 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2025
JUDGES:	Bond, Flanagan and Bradley JJA
ORDER:	The application for extension of the time within which to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of rape and three offences of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12 – where the applicant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment – where the application for extension of time was filed over four years after the deadline to apply for leave to appeal against sentence had expired – where there was no good reason for the lengthy delay in bringing the application – where the proposed ground of appeal was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the refusal to grant an extension would result in a miscarriage of justice – where the applicant had poor prospects of persuading the Court that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – where the application for extension of time should be refused Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9 R v Free; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, applied R v Muirhead (2019) 279 A Crim R 510; [2019] QCA 244, applied R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
COUNSEL:	D M Caruana for the applicant (pro bono) M A Gawrych for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent