R v Taylor - [2025] QCA 141

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taylor [2025] QCA 141

PARTIES:

R
v
TAYLOR, Declan Jay
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 239 of 2024
DC No 348 of 2024
DC No 1096 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 10 October 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Brown JA and Bradley JA

ORDER:

Leave to appeal 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 five counts across two indictments – where the applicant will serve eight years’ imprisonment for that offending – where the applicant must serve seven years’ imprisonment for attempted armed robbery in company, concurrently with seven years for grievous bodily harm and 18 months for unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at night with violence – where the applicant must then serve, cumulatively on those seven years, another 12 months’ imprisonment for threatening violence at night, while concurrently serving nine months for wilful damage – where the sentencing judge declared the two offences to be serious violent offences – where it was declared that the 1,094 days in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156, s 161B

R v Bennett[2016] QCA 31, considered
R v Bryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Free; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, considered
R v Gadd[2013] QCA 242, considered
R v Sellies-Cullen[2023] QCA 247, considered

COUNSEL:

D M Caruana for the applicant
M A Gawrych for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS P: I agree with Bradley JA.
BROWN JA: I agree with Bradley JA.
BRADLEY JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal a sentence imposed on 10 October 2024 in the District Court in respect of five counts across two indictments.
The sentence
The effect of the sentence is that the applicant will serve a total of eight years’ imprisonment and will be in custody for five years and 11 months before he will be eligible to apply for a parole order. The sentence has this effect due to its components and the parole eligibility date.
The applicant must serve seven years’ imprisonment for attempted armed robbery in company, concurrently with seven years for grievous bodily harm and 18 months for unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at night with violence. He committed these three offences on 10 October 2021. The sentencing judge declared each of the first two of the 10 October 2021 offences to be a serious violent offence.[1] Cumulatively on those…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2025] QCA 141
Case: [2025] QCA 141
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the court involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to five counts across two indictments. The applicant was sentenced to an eight-year term of imprisonment, which included a seven-year sentence for attempted armed robbery in company, running concurrently with a seven-year sentence for grievous bodily harm, and 18 months for unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at night with violence. In addition, the applicant was to serve 12 months cumulatively on the seven years for threatening violence at night, while concurrently serving nine months for wilful damage. The sentencing judge had declared the two offences to be serious violent offences, and 1,094 days in pre-sentence custody were deemed time already served under the sentences. The applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with considering whether the length and severity of the sentence were disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether there were any grounds for interference with the sentence. The applicant argued that the cumulative nature of the sentences, coupled with the time already served in pre-sentence custody, rendered the overall punishment manifestly excessive.

The court examined the nature and severity of the offences, the cumulative effect of the sentences, and the time already served by the applicant. The court noted that the offences were indeed serious violent crimes, which warranted significant punishment. In assessing the sentence, the court considered the totality principle, which ensures that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences is not disproportionately severe. After careful consideration, the court found that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. As a result, the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal 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 Taylor [2025] QCA 141
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Declan Jay (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 239 of 2024 DC No 348 of 2024 DC No 1096 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 10 October 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	1 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Brown JA and Bradley JA
ORDER:	Leave to appeal 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 five counts across two indictments – where the applicant will serve eight years’ imprisonment for that offending – where the applicant must serve seven years’ imprisonment for attempted armed robbery in company, concurrently with seven years for grievous bodily harm and 18 months for unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at night with violence – where the applicant must then serve, cumulatively on those seven years, another 12 months’ imprisonment for threatening violence at night, while concurrently serving nine months for wilful damage – where the sentencing judge declared the two offences to be serious violent offences – where it was declared that the 1,094 days in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156, s 161B R v Bennett[2016] QCA 31, considered R v Bryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered R v Free; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, considered R v Gadd[2013] QCA 242, considered R v Sellies-Cullen[2023] QCA 247, considered
COUNSEL:	D M Caruana for the applicant M A Gawrych for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent