R v TBF - [2025] QCA 67

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v TBF [2025] QCA 67

PARTIES:

R
v
TBF
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 145 of 2024
DC No 24 of 2024
DC No 36 of 2024
DC No 43 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 13 June 2024 (Rosengren DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 March 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Gotterson AJA and Crow J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – SENTENCING AS ADULT OR CHILD AND IMPRISONMENT – where the applicant pleaded guilty to some 20 charges in the Magistrates Court – where no allocutus was administered – where the magistrate did not sentence the applicant at that hearing but made an order that a pre-sentence report be prepared in respect of all but five of the 20 offences – where the offending took place before the applicant attained 18 years of age – where 17 of the offences were then the subject of an ex officio indictment – where the applicant was later charged on an indictment filed in the Supreme Court – where Count 1 on the indictment alleged robbery with a dangerous weapon and Count 2 alleged attempted murder or alternatively, malicious act with intent – where the applicant pleaded guilty to Count 1 and to the alternative in Count 2 – where the indictment was remitted to the District Court – where the applicant was arraigned at the sentence hearing in the District Court on the 17 counts in the ex officio indictment and on three summary offences – where the applicant pleaded guilty to all those offences – where the applicant was 19 years old when those pleas were made – where the applicant was sentenced in the District Court in respect of Counts 1 and 2 on the remitted indictment, the 17 counts in the ex officio indictment and three summary offences – where the learned sentencing judge proceeded on the basis that by virtue of the guilty pleas made in the District Court, the applicant was to be sentenced as an adult but to no greater penalty than he would have received as a child – whether the learned sentencing judge erred by sentencing the applicant as an adult in relation to the charges contained in the ex officio indictment and the summary charges – whether each sentence in respect of those charges should be set aside and the applicant should be resentenced

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment to serve 60 per cent – where a conviction was recorded in relation to the offence of malicious act with intent – where the learned sentencing judge made a declaration that the applicant is a serious repeat offender –…

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 TBF

Details

AGLC: R v TBF [2025] QCA 67
Case: [2025] QCA 67
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the applicant, TBF, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges in the Magistrates Court. The charges included serious offences such as robbery with a dangerous weapon and attempted murder, among others. TBF's case was remitted to the District Court, where he pleaded guilty to all charges, leading to a sentencing hearing. The District Court sentenced TBF as an adult, but with consideration that the penalties would not exceed those for a child. TBF appealed, arguing that he should have been sentenced as a child and that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in sentencing TBF as an adult for the charges in the ex officio indictment and the summary charges, and if the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court had to consider whether the District Court's approach to sentencing, which balanced the seriousness of the offences with TBF's personal circumstances, was correct. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was disproportionate given TBF's background, including his history of offending, the impact of his upbringing, and his diagnosed foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The court found that the District Court did not err in sentencing TBF as an adult, given his age and the nature of the offences. The court acknowledged the serious nature of the crimes and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offences. It was noted that TBF had a significant history of criminal behaviour and that the offences involved a high degree of premeditation. Despite TBF's difficult upbringing and his disorder, the court concluded that these factors did not negate the need for a strong deterrent sentence. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances and the need to protect the community.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v TBF [2025] QCA 67
PARTIES:	R v TBF (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 145 of 2024 DC No 24 of 2024 DC No 36 of 2024 DC No 43 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 13 June 2024 (Rosengren DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	9 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 March 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Gotterson AJA and Crow J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – SENTENCING AS ADULT OR CHILD AND IMPRISONMENT – where the applicant pleaded guilty to some 20 charges in the Magistrates Court – where no allocutus was administered – where the magistrate did not sentence the applicant at that hearing but made an order that a pre-sentence report be prepared in respect of all but five of the 20 offences – where the offending took place before the applicant attained 18 years of age – where 17 of the offences were then the subject of an ex officio indictment – where the applicant was later charged on an indictment filed in the Supreme Court – where Count 1 on the indictment alleged robbery with a dangerous weapon and Count 2 alleged attempted murder or alternatively, malicious act with intent – where the applicant pleaded guilty to Count 1 and to the alternative in Count 2 – where the indictment was remitted to the District Court – where the applicant was arraigned at the sentence hearing in the District Court on the 17 counts in the ex officio indictment and on three summary offences – where the applicant pleaded guilty to all those offences – where the applicant was 19 years old when those pleas were made – where the applicant was sentenced in the District Court in respect of Counts 1 and 2 on the remitted indictment, the 17 counts in the ex officio indictment and three summary offences – where the learned sentencing judge proceeded on the basis that by virtue of the guilty pleas made in the District Court, the applicant was to be sentenced as an adult but to no greater penalty than he would have received as a child – whether the learned sentencing judge erred by sentencing the applicant as an adult in relation to the charges contained in the ex officio indictment and the summary charges – whether each sentence in respect of those charges should be set aside and the applicant should be resentenced CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment to serve 60 per cent – where a conviction was recorded in relation to the offence of malicious act with intent – where the learned sentencing judge made a declaration that the applicant is a serious repeat offender –…