SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v SEP [2025] QCA 117
PARTIES:
R
v
SEP
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 256 of 2024
SC No 138 of 2023DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence:
1 November 2024 (Sullivan J)DELIVERED ON:
27 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 June 2025
JUDGES:
Brown JA and North and Henry JJ
ORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUTATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of unlawfully supplying cocaine – where the application for leave to appeal was premised on an inference the sentence was so unreasonable or plainly unjust that there must have been error – where there were significant mitigating considerations – whether the sentence structure allowed for mitigating considerations – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited
R v BEM[2024] QCA 175, cited
R v Cooney[2004] QCA 244, cited
R v Hawke[2021] QCA 179, cited
R v Hesketh; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] QCA 116, cited
R v McLean[2021] QCA 70, cited
R v Ponsonby[2024] QCA 229, cited
R v Richards[2017] QCA 299, citedCOUNSEL:
P J Wilson for the applicant
M A Sheppard for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE COURT: The applicant was indicted on eight drug charges and pleaded guilty to seven of them. She went to trial and was convicted by a jury on the most serious charge: that she and her brother unlawfully supplied cocaine in November 2022.
She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the charge of supplying cocaine. She received lesser concurrent sentences of imprisonment of one month each for five supply cannabis charges, nine months for a possession of cannabis charge and was convicted but not further punished on a charge of possessing a phone used for supply.
Notwithstanding that the applicant went to trial, her parole release date was set after she has served only 11 months, which is less than one third of the three year head sentence. Such an outcome bespeaks allowance for mitigating circumstances. Despite this the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground the ‘sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, as … his Honour failed to give adequate weight to matters in mitigation’.
The applicant’s outline of submissions raises the possibility inadequate weight was given to some mitigating considerations below, but discrete error is not alleged in respect of any of them. Rather the application for leave to appeal is premised on an inference, per House v…
Continue reading R v SEP
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v SEP [2025] QCA 117
- Case
- [2025] QCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around whether the sentence structure appropriately allowed for the significant mitigating considerations presented by the applicant. These included her young age, lack of previous convictions, traumatic upbringing, and psychological conditions that potentially influenced her involvement in the offending behaviour. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the objective level of criminality.
The court concluded that, while there were substantial mitigating considerations, the head sentence for the offence was not so high as to manifest error. The applicant's youth, lack of prior convictions, and the traumatic experiences she endured were all recognised as significant mitigating factors. However, these factors were balanced against the seriousness of the offence, and the court found that the sentence did not fall outside the range that could be considered appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
The court's final order was to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
None of this is to suggest that the objective level of criminality is the sole determinant of an appropriate sentence. The subjective mitigating considerations discussed below are obviously relevant. But in a case where it is argued the sentence is so high as to manifest error, that argument is not aided by the head sentence apparently falling towards the lower end of an objectively appropriate range.2.There were significant mitigating considerations The applicant had no previous convictions. She was also still a very young adult, being aged only 18 and 19 during the offending period. Her youth, particularly in the absence of previous convictions, was an undoubtedly significant mitigating consideration.[6][6]R v McLean [2021] QCA 70 at [14]. The applicant had a dysfunctional, traumatic upbringing. When she was six years old her father brought her to Australia, away from her Philippines based mother, who was a prostitute and drug addict. Her father repeatedly abused her and she endured unstable patterns of care arrangements until her mid-teens, after which she lived at various friends’ homes. A father of her boyfriend abused her and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for doing so. Against that background of victimisation and abandonment the applicant struggled through her teenage years with depressive symptoms and episodes of self-harm. She left school in year 11 and worked in a variety of unskilled positions. She had some sporadic engagement with mental health professionals and took some antidepressant and antipsychotic medication. The applicant’s difficult life history and her attempts to grapple with its consequences in her adulthood was evidenced in references and a letter to the court from the defendant. It was also discussed in the report of Mr Walkley. He considered the applicant likely has complex post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder and cannabis dependency. Mr Walkley opined the applicant had become involved in offending because she was ‘involved with a group of people for whom drugs played a central role in their lives’ and was ‘highly vulnerable to manipulation’ and ‘easily swayed’ because of her past abandonment and consequent ‘need to belong and to feel part of a group’. The history of the domestic violence which had impacted the applicant’s upbringing was a relevant consideration generally by reason of ss 9(2)(gb)(i) and (iii) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). More specifically, the adverse psychological effects of a childhood blighted by such abuse upon the applicant fell to be treated as a mitigating factor per s 9(10B)(a). Whether the offending was wholly or partly attributable to those effects was generally relevant per s 9(2)(gb)(ii) and the extent to which it was attributable was a mitigating factor per s 9(10B)(b). This was not a case where the effects of domestic violence had a direct causal role, as for example, where a domestically violent offender intimidates his battered partner into aiding his offending. At the highest the applicant’s offending was only partly attributable to the effects of domestic violence, and only to the same indirect extent that the other travails of her sadly dysfunctional upbringing left her more vulnerable to making the poor life decision to become involved in such offending. The learned sentencing judge expressly took that vulnerability into account. However, it was but one mitigating factor to be weighed in conjunction with all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.[7][7]R v BEM [2024] QCA 175 at [20].