R v Oates

In the case of R v Oates, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed following a guilty plea to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently, and suspended after serving a period of 2 months, for an operational period of 6 months. The applicant argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the delay in sentencing and the lack of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the delay in sentencing, as a factor in the sentencing exercise and whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 9(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court found that the sentencing judge did not fail to take into account the delay in sentencing as it occurred in circumstances where the applicant had not merely had a prior trial listing that had not been reached. There had been a pre-recording of the complainant’s evidence, during which it was put to the complainant that the offences did not take place, there had also been a further trial listing, with pleas only entered close to that listed hearing. In those circumstances, a delay of two and a-half years cannot be said to be significant. The court also found that there was no evidence of rehabilitation and that the sentencing judge’s conclusion that the pleas of guilty were not indicative of insight or genuine remorse was also apposite.

The court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentences, including the delay in sentencing and the lack of rehabilitation. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court found that the applicant was unable to establish any of the proposed grounds of appeal and that a grant of leave to appeal sentence would be futile. The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal sentence be refused and that a warrant issue, such warrant to lie in the Registry for 24 hours to allow the applicant to first surrender himself into custody.