R v Field

Case [2017] QCA 188

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Field [2017] QCA 188

PARTIES:

R
v
FIELD, Allan John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 338 of 2016
SC No 1387 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 November 2016 (Atkinson J)

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 drug related offences including unlawful trafficking in methylamphetamine and amphetamine and was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment – where the applicant is eligible for parole after serving 18 months’ imprisonment – where the applicant contends he had demonstrated meaningful steps towards rehabilitation in the three and a half year period between arrest and sentencing – where the applicant submits his sentence should have been suspended rather than an earlier than usual parole eligibility date set – where, under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), a suspended sentence may only be imposed for terms of imprisonment of five years or less – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – NATURE OF DISCRETION – WHEN OBJECTION NOT TAKEN – where a note signed by the applicant was tendered at the sentencing hearing which implied that he had ceased using drugs – where the Crown made no challenge to this evidence – where the learned sentencing judge expressed scepticism about the implication and sought supporting evidence – where defence counsel did not supplement the letter with further evidence or make an assertion that the applicant was drug free – whether the implication was an unchallenged allegation of fact under the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 132C(2) – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in the exercise of her discretion

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant was a commercial partner in a trafficking business – where two of the applicant’s co-offenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of seven years and nine months and seven years respectively – where a related offender was found to have been a party to the trafficking rather than a partner in the business enterprise and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the learned sentencing judge found the applicant’s offending fell “somewhere between” the co-offenders and the related offender – where the applicant contends his offending was not “that much more serious” than that of the related offender – whether the sentence adequately addresses parity considerations – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), 132C(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 144(1)

Law v…

Continue reading R v Field

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Field [2017] QCA 188
Case
[2017] QCA 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Field involves an applicant appealing against his sentence for drug-related offences. The applicant had pleaded guilty to three offences, including unlawful trafficking in methylamphetamine and amphetamine, and was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. He is eligible for parole after serving 18 months. The applicant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive because he had demonstrated meaningful steps towards rehabilitation between his arrest and sentencing. He contended that his sentence should have been suspended rather than setting an earlier than usual parole eligibility date.

The court was required to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This required examining whether the applicant's efforts towards rehabilitation warranted a suspended sentence, particularly as a suspended sentence could only be imposed for terms of imprisonment of five years or less under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court also had to assess whether the sentencing judge erred in her discretion when considering evidence and allegations of fact that were not challenged during the trial.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentencing judge did not err in her exercise of discretion when considering the note signed by the applicant, which implied he had ceased using drugs. The court also found that the applicant’s sentence adequately addressed parity considerations between co-offenders and related offenders. The court concluded that the applicant’s offending fell "somewhere between" the sentences of his co-offenders and a related offender, and thus the sentence was appropriate.

The court denied the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

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.