Legal Research
Cases
R v Oldfield

R v Oldfield

Case [2004] QCA 435 16 November 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435

PARTIES:

R
v
OLDFIELD, Leisa Karen

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 310 of 2004
SC No 208 of 2004

SC No 435 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING
COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

16 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 November 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for trafficking with recommendation for post-prison community based release after 2 years – where applicant on probation for similar offences at time of commission of offences – where applicant is sole carer of a child - whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Burge [2004] QCA 161; CA No 63 of 2004, 13 May 2004, considered
R v Fry & Fry [2000] QCA 89; CA No 397 of 1999, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered
R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered

R v Zeremes & Zeremes [2003] QCA 255; CA No 135 of 2003, CA No 136 of 2003, 18 June 2003, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter SC for the applicant

R Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Philippides to deliver her reasons first.

PHILIPPIDES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was sentenced on 16 August 2004 on her plea in relation to eight counts and three summary offences.

In respect of count 1, a count of trafficking in the dangerous drug MDMA and methylamphetamine, a sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed, cumulative upon the sentences imposed for the summary offences. A recommendation was made for post prison community based release on 16 August 2006, that is, after two years.

Counts 2 to 7 concern six counts of supplying a dangerous drug and were treated as particulars of the trafficking and no separate penalty was imposed in respect of them. Count 8 concerned possession of MDMA in a quantity exceeding 2 grams. The sentence imposed for that count was one of six months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the five year sentence imposed for count 1, but cumulative upon the sentence imposed for the summary offences.

In relation to the summary offences, concurrent sentences of one month imprisonment were imposed.

The ground upon which the application is made is that the sentence imposed in respect of the trafficking offence was manifestly excessive. It is submitted that the sentence which should have been imposed is one of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months or accompanied by a recommendation for…

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 Oldfield

Details

AGLC: R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435
Case: [2004] QCA 435
Decision Date: 16 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter was convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after two years. The applicant, who was on probation for similar offences at the time of the commission of these offences, sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant also argued that she is the sole carer of a child, which should be taken into account in assessing the appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's personal circumstances and the recommendation for post-prison community-based release. The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence and the rehabilitation of offenders, as well as the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The court also considered the circumstances of the applicant, including her status as the sole carer of a child, and the fact that she was on probation at the time of the commission of the offences.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account the applicant's personal circumstances and had made a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after two years. The court also found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences, and that the applicant's status as the sole carer of a child did not necessarily require a reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not amount to an error of law.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435

Most Recent Citation

R v Yates [2006] QCA 101

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Joiner [2025] QCA 28
Citation 1 (Para 28)

…entencing discretion for offenders convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine, even at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. [2] R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435; cited with approval in R v Scott [2006] QCA 76.…
R v Challacombe [2009] QCA 314
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…to sentences which reflect those differences within a broad sentencing discretion. [1]Cf R v Cooney; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 414 ; R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435.…
R v Cooney; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2008] QCA 414
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…. [11][2006] QCA 367. [12](1996) 90 A Crim R 1; [1996] QCA 474. [13]Unreported, Supreme Court, Qld, Helman J, Indictment No 465, 29 January 2001. [14][2004] QCA 435. [15](1996) 87 A Crim R 558; [1996] QCA 218. [16][2000] QCA 105. [17][2004] QCA 161.…
R v McAway [2008] QCA 401
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…R v Oldfield ,[2] defence counsel submitted that a sentence of about four years imprisonment with parole after nine to 12 months was appropriate. [2][2004] QCA 435.…
R v. Dunphy [2007] QCA 421
Citation 5

…; CA No 86 of 2007, 17 July 2007, considered R v Coleman [2006] QCA 442; CA No 213 of 2006, 3 November 2006, discussed R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435; CA No 310 of 2004, 16 November 2004,considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 20…
R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…e, even at the lower end of the scale, is between three and five years imprisonment.[3] [1][2006] QCA 76. [2][2006] QCA 193. [3]See also R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435.…
R v Turner [2006] QCA 133
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…Counsel for the applicant referred to the decisions of this court in R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 and R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435 in support of his submission that the head sentence should have been suspended at an earlier point of time than after serving two years. In each of those cases the head sentence was five…
R v Yates [2006] QCA 101
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…he relevant times. A sentence of five years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years was held not to be manifestly excessive. [6][2004] QCA 435.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v D'Arrigo; ex parte [2004] QCA 399
Citation 1

…parties cannot overwhelm other sentencing consideration as was recognised both in Whitehouse [1998] QCA 148 and D’Arrigo ex parte Attorney-General [2004] QCA 399. That factor has less weight where, as is the case here, it is clear that a significant custodial sentence is warranted.…
R v Burge [2004] QCA 161
Citation 2

…milar offences at time of commission of offences – where applicant is sole carer of a child - whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Burge [2004] QCA 161; CA No 63 of 2004, 13 May 2004, considered R v Fry & Fry [2000] QCA 89; CA No 397 of 1999, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA…
R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369
Citation 3

…o 63 of 2004, 13 May 2004, considered R v Fry & Fry [2000] QCA 89; CA No 397 of 1999, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Zeremes & Zeremes [2003] QCA 255; CA No 135 of 2003, CA No 136 of 2003, 18 June 2003, considered COUNSEL:…
R v Zeremes [2003] QCA 255
Citation 4

…, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Zeremes & Zeremes [2003] QCA 255; CA No 135 of 2003, CA No 136 of 2003, 18 June 2003, considered COUNSEL: A J Rafter SC for the applicant R Pointing for the respondent SOLICITORS: Gilshenan…
R v FRY [2000] QCA 89
Citation 5

…le carer of a child - whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Burge [2004] QCA 161; CA No 63 of 2004, 13 May 2004, considered R v Fry & Fry [2000] QCA 89; CA No 397 of 1999, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Zeremes & Zerem…
R v Whithouse [1998] QCA 148
Citation 6

…iderations relating to the impact of a sentence on third parties cannot overwhelm other sentencing consideration as was recognised both in Whitehouse [1998] QCA 148 and D’Arrigo ex parte Attorney-General [2004] QCA 399. That factor has less weight where, as is the case here, it is clear that a significant custodi…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.

CITATION:	R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435
PARTIES:	R v OLDFIELD, Leisa Karen (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 310 of 2004 SC No 208 of 2004 SC No 435 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	16 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 November 2004
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for trafficking with recommendation for post-prison community based release after 2 years – where applicant on probation for similar offences at time of commission of offences – where applicant is sole carer of a child - whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Burge [2004] QCA 161; CA No 63 of 2004, 13 May 2004, considered R v Fry & Fry [2000] QCA 89; CA No 397 of 1999, CA No 17 of 2000, 21 March 2000, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Zeremes & Zeremes [2003] QCA 255; CA No 135 of 2003, CA No 136 of 2003, 18 June 2003, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter SC for the applicant R Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilshenan & Luton for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent