R v Stephensen

Case [2025] QCA 156

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stephensen [2025] QCA 156

PARTIES:

R
v
STEPHENSEN, Mark Christopher
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 113 of 2024
DC No 157 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 23 May 2024 (Fantin DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Doyle JA and Cooper J

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to add an additional ground for the application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2.   Oral application for leave to adduce evidence refused.

3.   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 was convicted after a trial of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, before leaving the scene – where the applicant was the sole carer of his four children at the time of sentencing – where the sentencing judge took into consideration the impact of the sentence on the applicant’s children – where the applicant’s mother took over the care of the four children – where the applicant sought leave to adduce further evidence regarding the declining health of his mother and his eldest child not assuming responsibility for caring for his other children – where the applicant sought leave on appeal to add compassionate grounds to reduce his sentence to enable him to assume caring responsibilities for his children – whether the applicant should be granted leave to add the additional ground and adduce additional evidence relating to the compassionate grounds

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, before leaving the scene – where the applicant’s conduct was found to be deliberately dangerous and not merely reckless – where the applicant was the sole carer of his four children at the time of sentencing – where the sentencing judge took into consideration in favour of the applicant the admissions made at trial by the applicant to reduce the number of witnesses, the impact of the sentence on the applicant’s children, and that custody would be more onerous on the applicant due to his mental health conditions – where there were aggravating factors that he applicant ran over the complainant deliberately and left the scene before police arrived – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E

R v Browne[2016] QCA 111, cited
R v Colegate[2022] QCA 148, cited
R v DCQ[2025] QCA 146, cited
R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541; [2003] QCA 460, considered
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v Tresize

Continue reading R v Stephensen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stephensen [2025] QCA 156
Case
[2025] QCA 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephensen, the applicant appealed against his sentence for a conviction of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The appeal centred on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence on compassionate grounds to reduce his sentence. Stephensen, the sole carer of his four children at the time of sentencing, argued that the sentence should be reduced due to the impact on his children and his own health conditions. The sentencing judge had considered these factors but still imposed a sentence that Stephensen considered excessive.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence on compassionate grounds. The court noted that the applicant's deliberate and dangerous conduct warranted a punitive sentence, but it also acknowledged the mitigating factors, including his sole carer status and health conditions. The court held that while the sentence was not ideal, it was not manifestly excessive given the deliberate nature of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court reasoned that an appeal against sentence is not intended to review the sentence based on post-sentencing circumstances. The evidence presented by Stephensen, concerning the decline in his mother's health and his eldest child's failure to assume responsibility for the younger children, did not warrant a reduction in sentence as it did not demonstrate that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found that the mitigating factors were adequately considered by the sentencing judge at the time of sentencing. Therefore, the application for leave to adduce further evidence and the application for leave to appeal against sentence were both refused.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for leave to add an additional ground for the appeal against sentence, to refuse the oral application for leave to adduce evidence, and to refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed, while not ideal, was not manifestly excessive or inadequate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to add an additional ground for the application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2. Oral application for leave to adduce evidence refused.

3. 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

Mr Stephensen self-reported a degenerative bone disease and a previous diagnosis of PTSD. His physical health condition meant he was unable to perform physical work. Mr Stephensen had also self-reported a diagnosis in his primary school years of ADHD. In circumstances where those matters were not contested by the prosecution, the sentencing judge accepted that Mr Stephensen may present as someone with symptoms consistent with ADHD. Mr Stephensen’s difficulty regulating his emotions and controlling his behaviour was manifest during the trial, demonstrated by frequent calling out, agitated physical behaviour in court and other displays. His physical or mental health conditions did not reduce the moral culpability of the offending because of the deliberate nature of his conduct. His poor impulse control and poor behavioural control is relevant to his risk of reoffending. The sentencing judge accepted that Mr Stephensen’s conditions would likely make the time served in custody more onerous for Mr Stephensen than when compared to others who did not have his background and vulnerabilities and that was a matter to take into account in his favour. His ongoing imprisonment will have an adverse impact on his mental health which was also a matter in his favour. General and specific deterrence and denunciation were important. Protection of the community was less significant in Mr Stephensen’s case. The sentence must also facilitate his ongoing rehabilitation. The mitigating factors in Mr Stephensen’s favour did not warrant deferring the parole eligibility date until after more than one-half of the sentence was served.Should the applicant be given leave to add the additional ground and adduce evidence? The role of this Court on an appeal against sentence is to discern whether an error was made by the sentencing judge in the sentence that was imposed and, if there was some other sentence warranted in law that should have been imposed, then that other sentence can be substituted: see s 668E(3) of the Criminal Code (Qld). In undertaking that task the Court focuses on the circumstances that existed at the time of the sentence: R v DCQ [2025] QCA 146 at [44]. The material relied on by the applicant for the compassionate ground reveals that Mr Stephensen’s expectations when he was sentenced that his mother in conjunction with his elder son would have the responsibility for caring for his three younger children have not been met due to the significant decline in his 83 year old mother’s health and that his elder son did not assume the responsibility of caring for his grandmother and his siblings and left the family home. An appeal against sentence is not for the purpose of reviewing the sentence because circumstances have arisen subsequent to the sentence that affect the domestic arrangements of the person who was sentenced: R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541 at [14]. There have been successful sentence appeals where evidence is adduced on appeal that was not available at the date of sentence but those cases are exceptional. In R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593 at 595, psychiatric and psychological reports concerning the applicant showed that he was so deeply depressed at the prospect of imprisonment he was potentially at risk of committing suicide and that he was also suffering from depression at the time he committed the stalking offences for which he had been sentenced. These additional reports were admitted on the application for leave to appeal in Maniadis on the basis (at 597) that their admission showed that some other sentence was warranted in law and that the sentence, in fact, imposed was unwarranted in the sense that it was manifestly excessive. Davies JA and Helman J (with whom Fitzgerald P agreed) noted at 597:“Evidence of events occurring after the date of sentence is generally unlikely to show this unless it shows what the state of affairs was at the time the sentence was imposed.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.