R v HCZ

Case [2025] QCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCZ [2025] QCA 147

PARTIES:

R
v
HCZ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2024
SC No 91 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 13 May 2024 (Sullivan J)

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Boddice JJA and Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal sentence granted.

2.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.   The sentence below is varied such that it be further ordered that the applicant be released from detention after serving 60 per cent of the sentence of detention imposed in respect of count 2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary (by breaking, in the night, while armed, in company) (count 1), one count of murder (count 2), one count of malicious act with intent (count 3) and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, in company (count 4) – where the applicant was sentenced to detention for a period of 14 years in respect of the count of murder and lesser concurrent periods of detention in respect of the remaining counts – where no specific order was made in relation to the time to be served in detention prior to release – where the applicant was required to serve 70 per cent of the ordered detention period prior to release – where the sentencing judge found that the offence of murder was “particularly heinous” – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence of murder was “particularly heinous” – whether the sentencing judge failed to give any or any adequate weight to the applicant’s pleas of guilty and personal circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to detention for a period of 14 years in respect of the count of murder – where the applicant submits that the sentence imposed for murder was manifestly excessive as the offence did not involve an intention to kill, or do grievous bodily harm – where the basis for the plea was felony murder – whether the sentence imposed for murder was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176, s 277

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
R v Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2007] QCA 310, approved
R v William (a pseudonym)[2020] QCA 174, approved

COUNSEL:

A M Hoare KC, with M W Harrison, for the applicant
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. BOND JA:  I have had the…

Continue reading R v HCZ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v HCZ [2025] QCA 147
Case
[2025] QCA 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a juvenile, appealed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge for murder, alleging errors in the assessment of the offence's heinousness and the weight given to the applicant's pleas of guilty and personal circumstances. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal and allowed the appeal against the sentence. The Court varied the sentence to require the applicant to serve 60 per cent of the detention period imposed for the murder count before being eligible for release.

The Court considered the arguments raised by the applicant, including whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the murder offence to be "particularly heinous" and whether the judge adequately considered the applicant's pleas of guilty and personal circumstances. The Court also examined whether the sentence for murder was manifestly excessive, given that the basis for the plea was felony murder, and the offence did not involve an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm. The Court found that the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence to be "particularly heinous" and failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's pleas of guilty and personal circumstances. The Court also found that the sentence for murder was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the sentence and varied the sentence to require the applicant to serve 60 per cent of the detention period imposed for the murder count before being eligible for release. The Court emphasised the importance of considering all the circumstances, including the subjective factors affecting the child, when determining the severity of the sentence for a juvenile offender. The Court also noted that the community expects offenders who commit crimes that are revolting and offensive beyond the norm to suffer a punishment that is proportional to the insult they have inflicted upon the community's sensibility.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. The sentence below is varied such that it be further ordered that the applicant be released from detention after serving 60 per cent of the sentence of detention imposed in respect of count 2.

Background

Background to the litigation

The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentence for murder. Should leave be granted, three grounds are relied upon by the applicant. First, that the sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence of murder was “particularly heinous”. Second, that the sentencing judge failed to give any or any adequate weight to the applicant’s pleas of guilty and personal circumstances. Third, that the sentence, in all of the circumstances, was manifestly excessive.Background At the time of the offence, the applicant was 17 years of age. He was aged 19 at the date of sentence. The applicant had an extensive criminal history, commencing when aged 15 years. He had not previously been ordered to serve detention. He had, on three occasions, been placed on a probation order.Indictment All of the offences were committed on the evening of 26 December 2022 at a home in a suburb north of Brisbane. The count of murder was charged as a felony murder pursuant to s 302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld). It was particularised as the applicant forming a common intention with another male to steal from the deceased’s residence whilst armed and in the execution of that unlawful purpose the applicant thrust a knife at the deceased to deter resistance or avoid apprehension when the thrusting of that knife was an act of such a nature as to likely endanger human life.Sentence hearing The sentencing hearing was conducted on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Relevantly, the statement of facts recorded the following matters:(a)The offences were committed at approximately 11.30 pm on 26 December 2022 in a residential area.(b)The relevant residence, which was occupied by the deceased, her husband and their two teenage daughters, had a home security closed circuit television system (CCTV) which captured the front porch and front lawn and could be monitored by a mobile phone application.(c)The family ordinarily locked their front door, but on this night the front door was inadvertently unlocked.(d)The applicant had spent most of the previous day at a residential facility for young people located in the same street. There was not a residential care worker supervising the household at that time.(e)At 11.27 pm on 26 December 2022, the applicant and another 17 year old male walked to the front of the residence and opened the front door. The applicant closed the front door and motioned a thumbs up to the other male. The other male entered the residence followed by the applicant, who was holding a knife in his hand (count 1).(f)When the applicant and the other male entered the residence, the dogs inside were barking. The deceased awoke, checked the home security application on her mobile phone and said to her husband, who had been awoken by the barking dogs, “the front door is open”.(g)The deceased’s husband opened the bedroom door to find the applicant standing in front of him in the hallway. The other male was in the living room and walked towards the deceased’s husband and the deceased, both of whom yelled and swore at the applicant and the other male to get out, pushing them out the front door.(h)Within three minutes of entering the home, the applicant ran outside the open front door, still armed with a knife. There was a physical struggle outside the front door. The deceased’s husband was primarily engaged in a struggle with the other male. The deceased was engaged in a struggle with the applicant.(i)During the struggle, the applicant struck out towards both the deceased and her husband, with the knife, but did not connect with either. A neighbouring security system picked up an audio recording of the applicant, or the other male saying, “I’ll kill you”.(j)All four moved onto the front lawn. The other male ran and briefly fell onto the road. The deceased and her husband were both engaged in a physical struggle with the applicant. The applicant struck the deceased to the chest with the knife (count 2) and the deceased’s husband to the back with the knife (count 3).(k)At that point, the other male approached the group attempting to extricate the applicant from the physical struggle. The applicant forced the deceased’s husband to the ground and kicked him several times to the face causing bruising (count 4). The deceased collapsed to her knees and slumped forward. She was holding a crossbody bag that the applicant had been wearing, in her hands. The applicant and the other male then fled the residence.(l)Police found the deceased on the ground with her face on the grass. Her daughters were sobbing over her body. The deceased was not conscious or breathing. Paramedics arrived at 11.43 pm and commenced CPR. A medical officer arrived at the scene at 11.54 pm and performed open heart chest surgery on the front lawn. This procedure revealed a four to five centimetre near vertical incisional wound on the left ventricle of the deceased’s heart.(m)The deceased was transported to hospital. She required defibrillation four times before regaining coordinated cardiac contractions. Paramedics also had to perform intermittent internal cardiac massage.(n)The ambulance arrived at hospital at 12.53 am. An examination revealed the deceased’s heart muscle was contracting weakly and globally. She was cold centrally and had no pulse. It was decided that further resuscitation attempts would be futile. The deceased died a short time later.(o)An autopsy conducted at 8.30 am on 29 December 2022, revealed a stab wound in the left lower chest. The wound was approximately 130 millimetres deep and penetrated the pericardial sac into the left ventricle of the heart. At least moderate force would have been used to inflict the wound. That single stab wound to the heart was the cause of the deceased’s death.(p)A medical examination of the deceased’s husband revealed he had sustained stab wounds to the shoulder blade and back of his right arm. The wound to the shoulder blade broke the true skin.(q)Police located the applicant and the other male in a bed, under a blanket, in the adjacent residential facility. The applicant’s shorts had blood splatter. The applicant lied and said he had fallen over earlier, although he could not point to any injuries to account for the blood. The applicant’s t-shirt had a cut to the left of his chest. The other male had injuries to his knees, consistent with the fall depicted in the CCTV footage. The applicant further lied by telling police that he had been asleep since 9.00 pm.(r)Body-worn camera footage recorded that at approximately 4.20 am, when the applicant was informed that he was under arrest for murder, he replied that he had been asleep from 9.00 pm that night and had an alibi. The applicant was also recorded laughing after his arrest. Shortly after, the applicant asked, “Did someone actually die right now? That’s what I want to know because you said I’m here for murder. I just want to know, you know, did someone die? That’s the question.” Police told the applicant to stop talking.(s)The knife used to stab the deceased had broken at the scene. The blade was found on the front lawn. It measured approximately 115 millimetres in length. The handle was found on a lounge chair in the adjacent residential facility. The crossbody bag that the applicant was wearing, was left on the front lawn of the deceased’s residence. Inquiries by police revealed that a mobile telephone located inside it was registered in the name of the other male’s mother.(t)A scientific examination revealed that both the deceased and her husband’s DNA was on the applicant’s shoes and under his fingernails. The DNA of the applicant and the deceased was on the base of the knife blade. The DNA of the deceased and her husband was on the tip of the knife blade. The applicant and the other male’s DNA was present at the doorway of the house. The applicant’s fingerprints were on the bedroom door of the deceased and her husband.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Finally, the sentencing judge found that having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the applicant’s age and previous convictions and the impact of recording a conviction, it was appropriate to record convictions for each of the counts. The applicant had a criminal record which spanned some two and a-half years with a repetition of breaking into premises and houses and whilst there were indications of an ability to rehabilitate and convictions may have some future effects on employment prospects, those factors did not outweigh the factors which supported a recording of convictions for the offences.ConsiderationGround 1 Section 176(3) of the Act limits the period to which a child may be detained for no longer than 10 years, unless the offence for which the person is to be sentenced is an offence for which a person sentenced as an adult would be liable to life imprisonment and the offence involved the commission of violence against a person and the court considers the offence to be a particularly heinous offence, having regard to all the circumstances.[10] If those conditions are met, the maximum period of detention is life.[10]The Act, s 176(10); s 176(3)(b). In R v William (a pseudonym),[11] Sofronoff P observed:“[25] The word heinous is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) to mean, ‘Hateful, odious; highly criminal or wicked; infamous, atrocious: chiefly characterising offences, crimes, sins, and those who commit them’. One might think that any act of attempted murder would be a heinous offence. That is why the word ‘heinous’ is qualified by two things. First, it is not enough for the offence to be heinous. It must be, in the court’s opinion, particularly heinous. Second, the heinousness of the offence is not to be judged by the objective facts involved in the commission of the offence only. It is to be evaluated ‘having regard to all the circumstances’.[26]All the circumstances include subjective factors. In cases involving child offenders the subjective circumstances of the offence necessarily loom large. The Charter of Youth Justice Principles set out in Schedule 1 of the Act include the requirement that a child who commits an offence should be ‘held accountable and encouraged to accept responsibility for the offending behaviour’ and should be ‘dealt with in a way that will give the child the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable ways’. These requirements cannot possibly be satisfied if the relevant subjective factors affecting the child are ignored. Thus, for example, if William were to have been sentenced as a child, his prospects for development in a responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable way would require consideration to be given to the fact that his mental disability is one that was induced by his mother’s reckless cruelty in feeding him poisons from a young age and to the fact that, as his history before and after the offence shows, he has a huge capacity for normalising his own behaviour if afforded a sane and safe environment.[27]Why is an offender who commits an offence that is a ‘particularly heinous having regard to all the circumstances’ to be treated more severely than another offender committing the same offence but in circumstances that do not warrant that characterisation? It is because the community rightly expects that offenders who commit crimes that are revolting and offensive beyond the norm must suffer a punishment that is proportional to the insult that they have inflicted upon the community’s sensibility. That is why it was relevant for Keane JA in R v Maygar, to refer, as relevant to the question whether an offence was particularly heinous, that it did not ‘inspire a sense of outrage’.[28]The frenzied stabbing by a boy of his mother might rightly be described as heinous. But, when one has regard to the conditions which drove this offender to commit the offence, that is to say, when one has regard to all the circumstances, the character of the offence may be regarded differently and very far from an offence that is particularly heinous.”[11][2020] QCA 174 at [25]–[28].