R v Meo - [2025] QCA 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MEO [2025] QCA 103

PARTIES:

R
v
MEO
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 226 of 2024
DC No 53 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 17 September 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 April 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Bradley JJA and Burns J

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 22 offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, 39 offences of entering or attempting to enter residences or commercial premises, seven offences of stealing, two offences of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, two offences of going armed in public so as to cause fear and one offence of wilful damage – where all but one of the offences were committed over a 20-day period – where the applicant was 16 years and 5 months of age at the time of sentencing – where the applicant received a head sentence of two and-a-half years detention – where convictions were recorded for 44 of the 73 offences – where the applicant was declared a Serious Repeat Offender pursuant to s 150A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding that “special circumstances” existed pursuant to s 227(2) of the Youth Justice Act – whether the sentencing judge erred in recording convictions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 150A, s 183, s 184, s 227

R v Coutts[2016] QCA 206, applied
R v DCB[2023] QCA 73, cited
R v DCD; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland[2024] QCA 91, cited
R v KAL[2013] QCA 317, cited
R v RSG[2023] QCA 70, cited
R v SCU[2017] QCA 198, cited

COUNSEL:

A C Freeman KC, with R K Micairan, for the applicant (pro bono)
T L Corsbie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Burns J and with the orders proposed by his Honour.
BRADLEY JA: I agree with Burns J.
BURNS J: On 17 September 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Childrens Court at Townsville to 73 separate offences. Count 1 – an unlawful use offence – was committed on 20 November 2022. All other offences were committed over a 20-day period which commenced precisely one year later. In total, there were 22 offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, 39 offences of entering or attempting to enter residences or commercial premises (with or without various aggravating features), seven…

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 Meo

Details

AGLC: R v Meo [2025] QCA 103
Case: [2025] QCA 103
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to a series of serious criminal offences, including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, entering or attempting to enter residences or commercial premises, stealing, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, going armed in public so as to cause fear, and wilful damage. The offences spanned a brief period of 20 days, with the applicant being 16 years and 5 months at the time of sentencing. The court imposed a head sentence of two and-a-half years detention, declared the applicant a Serious Repeat Offender under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), and recorded convictions for 44 of the 73 offences. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in not finding that "special circumstances" existed under section 227(2) of the Youth Justice Act, in recording convictions, and in imposing a manifestly excessive sentence.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge made any errors in assessing the appropriate sentence, particularly in light of the youth of the applicant and the presence of "special circumstances." It also considered whether the decision to record convictions for 44 of the 73 offences was appropriate, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant's argument centred on the potential for the court to impose a more lenient sentence under the Youth Justice Act, given the applicant's age and the possibility of rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the severity and frequency of the offences committed.

In its reasoning, the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the youth of the applicant, the nature of the offences, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court held that there were no errors in the sentencing process that warranted interference, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also upheld the decision to record convictions for the majority of the offences, finding that this was consistent with the principles of justice and appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v MEO [2025] QCA 103
PARTIES:	R v MEO (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 226 of 2024 DC No 53 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 17 September 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 April 2025
JUDGES:	Bond and Bradley JJA and Burns J
ORDER:	1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 22 offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, 39 offences of entering or attempting to enter residences or commercial premises, seven offences of stealing, two offences of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, two offences of going armed in public so as to cause fear and one offence of wilful damage – where all but one of the offences were committed over a 20-day period – where the applicant was 16 years and 5 months of age at the time of sentencing – where the applicant received a head sentence of two and-a-half years detention – where convictions were recorded for 44 of the 73 offences – where the applicant was declared a Serious Repeat Offender pursuant to s 150A of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding that “special circumstances” existed pursuant to s 227(2) of the Youth Justice Act – whether the sentencing judge erred in recording convictions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 150, s 150A, s 183, s 184, s 227 R v Coutts[2016] QCA 206, applied R v DCB[2023] QCA 73, cited R v DCD; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland[2024] QCA 91, cited R v KAL[2013] QCA 317, cited R v RSG[2023] QCA 70, cited R v SCU[2017] QCA 198, cited
COUNSEL:	A C Freeman KC, with R K Micairan, for the applicant (pro bono) T L Corsbie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent