R v PZW - [2025] QSC 39

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PZW [2025] QSC 39

PARTIES:

R
v
PZW

(defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 1179 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered Ex Tempore On 28 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 December 2024

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

1.   Count 1: 12 years’ detention.

2.   Count 2: 7 years’ detention.

3.   Order the periods of detention be served concurrently.

4.   Order the defendant be released after serving 60% of the sentences imposed.

5.   Order convictions be recorded on both counts.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offending – where the defendant pled guilty to murder and arson – where the defendant faces a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment unless the murder offence was “particularly heinous” – where a finding of particular heinousness increases the maximum penalty to life imprisonment – whether ten years is a benchmark in the absence of a finding of “particular heinousness” – whether the murder offence committed by the defendant was “particularly heinous” in all the circumstances – what is the appropriate sentence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 8
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 121

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 2, s 150, s 176, s 227, sch 4

Hurt v The King (2024) 98 ALJR 485; [2024] HCA 8, followed
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, followed
R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507; [2019] HCA 35, followed
R v BZZ & AZY [2024] QSC 138, cited
R v Carroll [1995] QCA 399, disapproved
R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, approved
R v Gwilliams [1997] QCA 389, disapproved
R v HST (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Sullivan J, 13 May 2024), cited
R v KU; ex parte Attorney-General (No 2) [2011] 1 Qd R 439; [2008] QCA 154, approved
R v LZY & Porter [2024] QSC 237, cited
R v Maygar; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2007] QCA 310, considered
R v SBU [2011] QCA 203, cited
R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174, approved
R v YTZ; ex parte Attorney-General; R v YTZ [2023] QCA 87, considered
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, followed

COUNSEL:

E L Kelso for the Crown

L D Reece for the defendant
S Aspinall for the Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support

SOLICITORS:

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

PZW, you pleaded guilty before Callaghan J on 16 July 2024 to two counts appearing on an indictment which bore three counts. Those counts to which you pleaded guilty were counts 1 and 3. You were discharged in relation to count 2 upon the Crown’s indication…

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 PZW

Details

AGLC: R v PZW [2025] QSC 39
Case: [2025] QSC 39
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v PZW, the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offending and pleaded guilty to charges of murder and arson. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the statutory framework applicable to juvenile offenders.

The court had to decide whether the offence of murder committed by the defendant was "particularly heinous," a determination that would increase the maximum penalty from 10 years to life imprisonment. It was also required to consider whether a 10-year maximum penalty was an appropriate benchmark in the absence of a finding of "particular heinousness."

The court found that the murder offence was not "particularly heinous" in all the circumstances. It concluded that while the defendant's actions were serious and warranted a significant penalty, the maximum penalty of 10 years was appropriate. The court also considered the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders, which include rehabilitation and the potential for reform. The court ordered that the sentences for the two counts be served concurrently and that the defendant be released after serving 60% of the sentences imposed. The court also ordered that convictions be recorded on both counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Count 1: 12 years’ detention.

2. Count 2: 7 years’ detention.

3. Order the periods of detention be served concurrently.

4. Order the defendant be released after serving 60% of the sentences imposed.

5. Order convictions be recorded on both counts.

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 PZW [2025] QSC 39
PARTIES:	R v PZW (defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 1179 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	Delivered Ex Tempore On 28 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 December 2024
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	1. Count 1: 12 years’ detention. 2. Count 2: 7 years’ detention. 3. Order the periods of detention be served concurrently. 4. Order the defendant be released after serving 60% of the sentences imposed. 5. Order convictions be recorded on both counts.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – RELEVANT FACTORS – where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offending – where the defendant pled guilty to murder and arson – where the defendant faces a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment unless the murder offence was “particularly heinous” – where a finding of particular heinousness increases the maximum penalty to life imprisonment – whether ten years is a benchmark in the absence of a finding of “particular heinousness” – whether the murder offence committed by the defendant was “particularly heinous” in all the circumstances – what is the appropriate sentence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 8 Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 121 Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 2, s 150, s 176, s 227, sch 4 Hurt v The King (2024) 98 ALJR 485; [2024] HCA 8, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, followed R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507; [2019] HCA 35, followed R v BZZ & AZY [2024] QSC 138, cited R v Carroll [1995] QCA 399, disapproved R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, approved R v Gwilliams [1997] QCA 389, disapproved R v HST (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Sullivan J, 13 May 2024), cited R v KU; ex parte Attorney-General (No 2) [2011] 1 Qd R 439; [2008] QCA 154, approved R v LZY & Porter [2024] QSC 237, cited R v Maygar; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2007] QCA 310, considered R v SBU [2011] QCA 203, cited R v William (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 174, approved R v YTZ; ex parte Attorney-General; R v YTZ [2023] QCA 87, considered Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, followed
COUNSEL:	E L Kelso for the Crown L D Reece for the defendant S Aspinall for the Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support
SOLICITORS:	Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant