R v Oad

Case [2024] QCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v OAD [2024] QCA 189

PARTIES:

R
v
OAD
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 215 of 2023
DC No 122 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 20 October 2023 (Smith DCJA)

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Bond JA and Freeburn J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to nine counts of rape (domestic violence offence) – where the offences were committed against the daughter of the applicant’s partner – where the applicant had served approximately three years in custody on remand for earlier District Court charges for which he was acquitted – whether there was scope for the application of the totality principle to the period spent in custody for the earlier charges

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to nine counts of rape (domestic violence offence) – where the applicant had been previously convicted in the District Court of three counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years and two counts of rape – where the applicant successfully appealed to the High Court and his convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered and was granted bail – where the applicant was on bail for three weeks before he was remanded for the subject offences – where the applicant had served three years in custody for the earlier District Court charges before he was acquitted – where the sentencing judge considered s 9(2)(r) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) authorised giving the applicant some credit for the three years in custody for the earlier District Court charges – whether the sentencing judge should have given full allowance for the three years in custody in determining the appropriate sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to nine counts of rape (domestic violence offence) – where the offences were committed against the daughter of the applicant’s partner – where the offending was over a period in excess of three years and involved penile rape – where the applicant’s conduct was brazen and when first confronted about the offending he denied the conduct and continued the offending – where the sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s guilty pleas and his having served three years in custody for the offences for which he was ultimately acquitted immediately before the commencement of the sentence for the subject offences – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 159A

Continue reading R v Oad

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Oad [2024] QCA 189
Case
[2024] QCA 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the case of R v Oad was convicted on nine counts of rape, which were classified as domestic violence offences. The victims were the daughter of the applicant's partner. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The applicant had already served approximately three years in custody on remand for earlier charges, which resulted in his acquittal. The appeal was focused on the sentencing process, specifically whether the sentencing judge applied the wrong principles in considering the time the applicant had already served in custody for the earlier charges.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the sentencing judge erred in not fully applying the totality principle to the three years the applicant had spent in custody on the earlier charges, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge should have given full allowance for the three years in custody in determining the appropriate sentence for the current charges. Additionally, the applicant contested that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the crimes, the duration of the offending, and the applicant's conduct.

The court considered the arguments and concluded that the sentencing judge had not acted on the wrong principle in considering the prior custody time. The court found that there was scope for applying the totality principle to the period spent in custody for the earlier charges, but the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the applicant's guilty pleas and the time already served in custody. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

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.