R v WCG - [2025] QCA 69

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WCG [2025] QCA 69

PARTIES:

R
v
WCG
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2024
DC No 48 of 2024
DC No 85 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 9 September 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2025

JUDGES:

Flanagan JA and Ryan and Cooper JJ

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against 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 three counts on a State indictment and three counts on a Commonwealth indictment – where serious violent offence declarations were made in relation to the rape counts on the State indictment – where the applicant was sentenced overall to 14 years, 7 months and 6 days imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date after serving 9 years 7 months and 6 days in custody – where the applicant contends that the learned sentencing judge failed to consider whether any amelioration of the head sentence was needed given the serious violent offence declaration and the cumulative imposition of the Commonwealth terms – where the applicant contends that the sentence offends the totality principle – where the applicant contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge failed to apply the totality principles – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19

Hurt v The King (2024) 98 ALJR 485; [2024] HCA 8, cited
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, applied
R v Norgate[2023] QCA 231, cited
Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186, cited

COUNSEL:

R C Taylor for the applicant
C O’Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
M A Green for the respondent in right of the State of Queensland

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FLANAGAN JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed in the District Court at Townsville on 9 September 2024. Prior to sentencing, the applicant had previously pleaded guilty to three counts on Indictment 48 of 2024 (State indictment) and three counts on Indictment 85 of 2024 (Commonwealth indictment).
The sentences imposed in relation to the State indictment were as follows:
Count 1 – Rape: 9.5 years imprisonment
Count 2 – Rape: 9.5 years imprisonment
Count 3 – Stalking: 2 years imprisonment
These terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served concurrently. Serious violent offence declarations were made in relation to both Counts 1 and 2. Eight hundred and eighty-nine days in pre-sentence custody was declared as time served.
The sentences imposed in relation to the Commonwealth indictment were as follows:
Count 1…

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 WCG

Details

AGLC: R v WCG [2025] QCA 69
Case: [2025] QCA 69
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v WCG involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed on him following a guilty plea to multiple counts, including serious offences related to rape. The dispute centered on the length and appropriateness of the sentence, specifically whether it was manifestly excessive or inadequate given the nature of the crimes and the principles of sentencing. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the totality principle and the impact of the serious violent offence declarations in determining the appropriate head sentence before imposing the cumulative terms from the Commonwealth indictment. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court of appeal in Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the totality principle was properly applied. The applicant contended that the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed, particularly in light of the serious violent offence declarations and the need for any head sentence to be reduced accordingly. The applicant also argued that the imposition of consecutive terms without proper consideration of the totality principle constituted an error in the sentencing process.

In examining the arguments presented, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the principles of sentencing, and the appropriate application of the totality principle. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the individual circumstances of the case, including the serious nature of the offences. The court concluded that the sentence did not offend the totality principle and was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the factors relevant to the imposition of the sentence, including the serious violent offence declarations and the cumulative effect of the terms imposed.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, refusing the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, indicating that the appeal did not meet the criteria for interference on the grounds presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons which follow, the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge did not offend the totality principle nor was it manifestly excessive.The agreed facts in relation to the State indictment At the time of the rape offending, which occurred on a date unknown between 30 September 2021 and 1 December 2021, the applicant was 33 years of age and the complainant was 16. They had met in 2019 while playing online video games on Xbox consoles. At the time the applicant was living in New South Wales and the complainant was living with her family in South Australia. They formed a friendship and began communicating via text and telephone and video calls. In July 2020 the complainant and her family moved to Townsville. After this move the applicant and the complainant remained in regular contact. At the end of May 2021 the applicant visited Townsville and in around August 2021 he posted the complainant an Xbox and a television monitor for her 16th birthday. In September 2021 the applicant also moved to Townsville. He would see the complainant in person and gifted her a Samsung Galaxy A71 mobile phone also for her 16th birthday. An arrangement was made whereby the applicant would collect the complainant from school two to three times a week in order to drop her home. Sometime between October 2021 and November 2021 arrangements were made for the applicant to collect the complainant from school. On this occasion, the applicant had notified the complainant’s mother that he had an air-conditioner person attending his house and sought permission from the mother to take the complainant back to his address prior to dropping her home. This was a ruse. When the applicant and the complainant arrived back at his house he requested her to obtain something from his bedroom. The complainant was approached from behind by the applicant. He grabbed her shoulder and pushed her towards the bed and used a “little bit” of force to push her down onto the bed. The complainant resisted and tried to close her legs. He spread her legs apart. She told him to stop and to get off her. The complainant was a virgin at the time. She attempted to push him off and pleaded with him to stop. He told her to “shut up” and not make a noise. He then had unprotected intercourse with the complainant. This conduct constituted Count 1. When he penetrated the complainant he put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. His hand remained in this position while he had sexual intercourse with the complainant. He told the complainant that she was not allowed to make any noise and to “accept her fate” because it was what women were made for. After he removed his penis he took his hand off the complainant’s mouth and took a photograph of her vagina with his phone. He then grabbed the back of her head and yanked her forward off the bed and onto the ground. She was positioned on her knees. He then forced his penis into her mouth and continued to thrust until he ejaculated. He instructed the complainant to swallow his semen which she did. This conduct constituted Count 2.

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 WCG [2025] QCA 69
PARTIES:	R v WCG (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 206 of 2024 DC No 48 of 2024 DC No 85 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 9 September 2024 (Farr SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2025
JUDGES:	Flanagan JA and Ryan and Cooper JJ
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against 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 three counts on a State indictment and three counts on a Commonwealth indictment – where serious violent offence declarations were made in relation to the rape counts on the State indictment – where the applicant was sentenced overall to 14 years, 7 months and 6 days imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date after serving 9 years 7 months and 6 days in custody – where the applicant contends that the learned sentencing judge failed to consider whether any amelioration of the head sentence was needed given the serious violent offence declaration and the cumulative imposition of the Commonwealth terms – where the applicant contends that the sentence offends the totality principle – where the applicant contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge failed to apply the totality principles – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19 Hurt v The King (2024) 98 ALJR 485; [2024] HCA 8, cited R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, applied R v Norgate[2023] QCA 231, cited Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186, cited
COUNSEL:	R C Taylor for the applicant C O’Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) M A Green for the respondent in right of the State of Queensland
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent