R v HCY - [2025] QCA 107

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCY [2025] QCA 107

PARTIES:

R
v
HCY
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No XX of 2024
SC No XXX of 2024
SC No XX of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: X October 2024 [Redacted]

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Boddice JA and Callaghan J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, five counts of supplying dangerous drugs, one count of possessing a relevant substance, and one count of contravening an order about device information from a digital device – where the prosecutor at sentencing tendered a statement of facts which set out the incorrect maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking as life imprisonment – where the maximum penalty of life imprisonment only applied to trafficking offences committed on and from 2 May 2023 – where the maximum penalty that applied to the applicant’s trafficking offence was 25 years’ imprisonment – where the maximum penalty was neither a matter on which there was any express discussion during the sentencing hearing nor referred to in the sentencing remarks – where the comparable authorities relied upon by the prosecutor related to trafficking offences where the maximum penalty was 25 years’ imprisonment – where the applicant’s counsel accepted the prosecutor’s range of sentences for the trafficking based on these authorities – whether the misstatement as to the maximum penalty was material

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, five counts of supplying dangerous drugs, one count of possessing a relevant substance, and one count of contravening an order about device information from a digital device – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence, six months’ imprisonment for each of counts 2-7, and eight months’ imprisonment for count 8, with all sentences served concurrently – where the effect of a sentence of imprisonment for the offending resulted in the applicant having to serve the remainder of the sentence for which he was on parole at the date he commenced the trafficking – where the applicant’s eligibility for parole date was fixed about 21 months after the date of sentence – where the applicant submitted the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the custodial component of 21 months – where the applicant was a mature offender with a relevant prior criminal history and had trafficked methylamphetamine for almost five months – where there was cooperation with the administration of justice – where it was a significant aggravating factor that the applicant committed…

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 HCY

Details

AGLC: R v HCY [2025] QCA 107
Case: [2025] QCA 107
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against his sentence, which was imposed following a guilty plea to various drug-related charges. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment, with the custodial component amounting to 21 months. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the maximum penalty for the trafficking offence was misstated during sentencing. The court considered whether the misstatement of the maximum penalty was material and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the misstatement of the maximum penalty for the trafficking offence was not material as the maximum penalty was not a matter discussed during the sentencing hearing and was not referred to in the sentencing remarks. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the applicant had a relevant prior criminal history and had trafficked methylamphetamine for almost five months. The court further noted that the applicant had cooperated with the administration of justice and that there was a significant aggravating factor that the applicant committed the trafficking offence while on parole.

The court found that the compelling case in favour of early eligibility for parole was supported by a 21-month period of sobriety during which the applicant had re-engaged in employment. The applicant deserved the chance to rejoin the community at a time much earlier than would otherwise have been applicable. The court ordered that the applicant should immediately become eligible for parole.

The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the applicant's circumstances were distinctive enough to demand a different approach to the prospect of his early release. The court found that the applicant should immediately become eligible for parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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

The compelling case in favour of early eligibility for parole was supported by a 21 month period of sobriety during which the applicant had re-engaged in employment. The applicant deserves the chance to rejoin the community at a time much earlier than would otherwise have been applicable. He should do so under supervision and expecting the parole authorities to take action if he does not take advantage of this opportunity.Conclusion The calibration of a just sentence in this case demands application of relevant principles which were not mentioned by his Honour. This failure is not pleaded as a specific error, and would not of itself amount to one, but the omission may explain how an excessive sentence came to be imposed. In any event, and although I would affirm the head sentence, the applicant’s circumstances were distinctive enough to demand a different approach to the prospect of his early release. Having regard to the time that has passed since the sentence, I would have adopted Mr Bain’s submission and ordered that the applicant should immediately become eligible for parole. My view is not shared, so it is unnecessary to consider the form of any orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v HCY [2025] QCA 107
PARTIES:	R v HCY (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No XX of 2024 SC No XXX of 2024 SC No XX of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: X October 2024 [Redacted]
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice JA and Callaghan J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, five counts of supplying dangerous drugs, one count of possessing a relevant substance, and one count of contravening an order about device information from a digital device – where the prosecutor at sentencing tendered a statement of facts which set out the incorrect maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking as life imprisonment – where the maximum penalty of life imprisonment only applied to trafficking offences committed on and from 2 May 2023 – where the maximum penalty that applied to the applicant’s trafficking offence was 25 years’ imprisonment – where the maximum penalty was neither a matter on which there was any express discussion during the sentencing hearing nor referred to in the sentencing remarks – where the comparable authorities relied upon by the prosecutor related to trafficking offences where the maximum penalty was 25 years’ imprisonment – where the applicant’s counsel accepted the prosecutor’s range of sentences for the trafficking based on these authorities – whether the misstatement as to the maximum penalty was material CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, five counts of supplying dangerous drugs, one count of possessing a relevant substance, and one count of contravening an order about device information from a digital device – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence, six months’ imprisonment for each of counts 2-7, and eight months’ imprisonment for count 8, with all sentences served concurrently – where the effect of a sentence of imprisonment for the offending resulted in the applicant having to serve the remainder of the sentence for which he was on parole at the date he commenced the trafficking – where the applicant’s eligibility for parole date was fixed about 21 months after the date of sentence – where the applicant submitted the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the custodial component of 21 months – where the applicant was a mature offender with a relevant prior criminal history and had trafficked methylamphetamine for almost five months – where there was cooperation with the administration of justice – where it was a significant aggravating factor that the applicant committed…