Legal Research
Cases
R v Cockfield

R v Cockfield

Case [2006] QCA 276 4 August 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276

PARTIES:

R
v
COCKFIELD, Tristan Michael
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 159 of 2006
DC No 2926 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 July 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentence imposed on each count on 9 June 2006 and instead order on each count that the applicant serve a term of imprisonment of two years suspended after serving three months with an operational period of two years

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - GENERALLY - where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence - where applicant undertook under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to co-operate with police in implicating and giving evidence against his co-offenders at trial - where applicant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three and a half years - where sentencing judge noted sentence which would have been imposed but for applicant's s 13A undertaking to co-operate before instead of after sentencing and so did not strictly comply with s 13A(7) - where applicant claims that sentence is manifestly excessive - whether applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive given applicant's s 13A co-operation - whether sentencing process miscarried as a result of failure to comply with s 13A(7)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

R v Abednego [2004] QCA 377; CA No 248 of 2004, 12 October 2004, considered

R v Bower-Miles & Smith [1995] QCA 453; CA No 278 and CA No 279 of 1995, 14 September 1995, considered

R v Perks & Jaggard [1997] QCA 312; CA No 256 and CA No 264 of 1997, 29 August 1997, considered

R v Salmon; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 262; CA No 155 of 2002, 25 July 2002, considered

R v Webber (2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316; CA No 436 of 1999, 8 August 2000, followed

COUNSEL:

J A Griffin QC, with P F Mylne, for applicant/appellant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Grasso Searles Romano for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 9 June 2006 to one count of burglary and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence. He was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three and a half…

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 Cockfield

Details

AGLC: R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276
Case: [2006] QCA 276
Decision Date: 4 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Cockfield concerns the sentence imposed on the applicant following his guilty pleas to charges of burglary and armed robbery. The applicant had undertaken to cooperate with the police under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) by implicating and providing evidence against his co-offenders. Despite this cooperation, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after six months, with an operational period of three and a half years. The applicant contends that this sentence is manifestly excessive and that the sentencing process miscarried due to the judge's failure to comply with section 13A(7) of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the applicant's cooperation under section 13A, and whether the sentencing process was flawed due to the judge's procedural error. The court had to consider the extent to which the applicant's cooperation should mitigate his sentence and assess the impact of the procedural error on the overall fairness of the sentencing process. The court examined relevant authorities, including R v Abednego, R v Bower-Miles & Smith, R v Perks & Jaggard, R v Salmon; ex parte A-G (Qld), and R v Webber, to determine the appropriate course of action.

The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's cooperation under section 13A. The court also acknowledged the procedural error in not following the required sentencing process under section 13A(7). Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and ordered a new sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after three months, with an operational period of two years on each count. This decision ensures that the applicant's cooperation is appropriately reflected in the sentencing outcome and that the procedural requirements of the Act are adhered to.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentence imposed on each count on 9 June 2006 and instead order on each count that the applicant serve a term of imprisonment of two years suspended after serving three months with an operational period of two years

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276

Most Recent Citation

R v Kraaz [2006] QCA 520

Cases citing this decision · 11 of 11 shown

R v Murphy
[2023] QCA 98 Para 7

…One of the comparatives referred to by Fraser JA was R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276 which involved an application for leave to appeal against sentence of a 22 year old with a criminal history which included offences involving violence. Cockfield, in company with another offender, forced his way into a house past tw…
R v MCY
[2018] QCA 275 Para 6

…L, and was the principal beneficiary of the crime, in that the home invasion succeeded and the applicant recovered her daughter L. [9] R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276; R v Bower-Miles [1995] QCA 453.…
R v Gibb
[2018] QCA 120

…R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276, cited R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442, cited R v Leu ; R v Togia (2008) 186 A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, cited R v Mawson [1967] VR 205; [1967] VicRp 23, cited R v Miller [2015] QCA 94, cited R v Rigney [1996] 1 Qd R 551; [1995] QCA 571, cited R v Senior [2001] QCA 346, cited R v S…
R v Buckley; R v Ghattas
[2014] QCA 98 Para 1

…r nine months would have been imposed. Instead, the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended after three months. [15][2006] QCA 276.…
R v Ross
[2012] QCA 247 Para 1

…parole release date fixed after six months in a case such as this is by no means excessive.[7] [7]See R v Blenkinsop [2007] QCA 181 and R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276 where the imprisonment was suspended after service of three months but the sentence had been imposed pursuant to s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences…
R v Woodman
[2012] QCA 236 Para 1

…d to one side when she attempted to protect the complainant. Property was damaged in the melee. Togia stole some marijuana and money was taken. [28][2006] QCA 276. [29][2008] QCA 201. [30][2007] QCA 181.…
R v HBG
[2012] QCA 83 Para 1

…to two years should be imposed. [4][1995] QCA 453. [5][1995] QCA 594. [6][1999] QCA 492. [7][2002] QCA 262. [8][2003] QCA 74. [9][2003] QCA 227. [10][2006] QCA 276. [11][2001] QCA 11.…
R v Fleming
[2009] QCA 112 Para 1

…Counsel for the respondent referred us to R v Frazer [1997] QCA 306 and R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276 but neither is of particular relevance.…
R v Leu; R v Togia
[2008] QCA 201 Para 25

…In R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276 the applicant for leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty to similar offences. Cockfield was 22 years old at the time of offending and had a criminal history which included some offences involving violence. Apparently on the spur on the moment, Cockfield, in company with an…
R v Blenkinsop
[2007] QCA 181 Para 1

…he range of two and a half to three years imprisonment, with an early recommendation in that case to recognise the significant mitigating factors. [1][2006] QCA 276. [2][2003] QCA 74. [3][2003] QCA 227.…
R v Kraaz
[2006] QCA 520 Para 1

…4 A Crim R 265; R v Watkins [2003] QCA 437) and other cases which identify sentences ranging from three and a half years to two years ( R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276; R v Bowe & Taylor [2004] QCA 414 and R v Hess [2003] QCA 553). They are of some assistance in determining the appropriate range and the fact that th…

View all 11 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Abednego
[2004] QCA 377 Para 1

…and R v Abednego .[5] [3][2002] QCA 262; CA No 155 of 2002, 25 July 2002. [4][1995] QCA 453; CA No 278 and CA No 279 of 1995, 14 September 1995. [5][2004] QCA 377; CA No 248 of 2004, 12 October 2004.…
R v Salmon; ex parte Attorney-General
[2002] QCA 262 Para 1

…. He particularly relies on the decisions of this Court in R v Salmon; ex parte A-G (Qld) ,[3] R v Bower-Miles & Smith [4] and R v Abednego .[5] [3][2002] QCA 262; CA No 155 of 2002, 25 July 2002. [4][1995] QCA 453; CA No 278 and CA No 279 of 1995, 14 September 1995. [5][2004] QCA 377; CA No 248 of 2004, 12 Octob…
R v Webber
[2000] QCA 316 Para 1

…the sentencing process miscarried and that this Court can resentence the applicant, exercising its discretion afresh.[2] [1](2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316; CA No 436 of 1999; 8 August 2000. [2]Above, [3].…
R v Bower-Miles & Smith
[1995] QCA 453 Para 1

…urt in R v Salmon; ex parte A-G (Qld) ,[3] R v Bower-Miles & Smith [4] and R v Abednego .[5] [3][2002] QCA 262; CA No 155 of 2002, 25 July 2002. [4][1995] QCA 453; CA No 278 and CA No 279 of 1995, 14 September 1995. [5][2004] QCA 377; CA No 248 of 2004, 12 October 2004.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
13A 2 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276
PARTIES:	R v COCKFIELD, Tristan Michael (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 159 of 2006 DC No 2926 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 July 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard and Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1.Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2.Appeal allowed 3. Set aside the sentence imposed on each count on 9 June 2006 and instead order on each count that the applicant serve a term of imprisonment of two years suspended after serving three months with an operational period of two years
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - GENERALLY - where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence - where applicant undertook under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to co-operate with police in implicating and giving evidence against his co-offenders at trial - where applicant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three and a half years - where sentencing judge noted sentence which would have been imposed but for applicant's s 13A undertaking to co-operate before instead of after sentencing and so did not strictly comply with s 13A(7) - where applicant claims that sentence is manifestly excessive - whether applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive given applicant's s 13A co-operation - whether sentencing process miscarried as a result of failure to comply with s 13A(7) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A R v Abednego [2004] QCA 377; CA No 248 of 2004, 12 October 2004, considered R v Bower-Miles & Smith [1995] QCA 453; CA No 278 and CA No 279 of 1995, 14 September 1995, considered R v Perks & Jaggard [1997] QCA 312; CA No 256 and CA No 264 of 1997, 29 August 1997, considered R v Salmon; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 262; CA No 155 of 2002, 25 July 2002, considered R v Webber (2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316; CA No 436 of 1999, 8 August 2000, followed
COUNSEL:	J A Griffin QC, with P F Mylne, for applicant/appellant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Grasso Searles Romano for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent