R v Oldfield - [1999] QCA 85

99.85

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WHITE J
MUIR J

CA No 458 of 1998

THE QUEEN

DARLENE KAREN OLDFIELD Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/03/99

JUDGMENT

MUIR J: The applicant, a 40-year-old mother of children aged 15 and 17, was convicted on her own pleas on 30 November 1998 of possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, and of, whilst the occupier or concerned in the management or control of a place, permitting the said place to be used in the commission of a crime defined in Part 2 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. She was sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment with a recommendation for release on parole after nine months.

The applicant was married at 21 and separated at the age of 30. Her 17-year-old son had at the time of sentencing just finished grade 12, and her daughter had finished grade 10 and proposed to continue with her schooling. The applicant completed Senior as an adult student at the age of 23, and had her children in the course of doing so. She did external studies which qualified her as a library technician and then worked at the QUT campus at Carseldine as a library technician for 12 months.

At around that time she separated from her husband and went to Maryborough to look after her dying father. The children came with her. Her prior criminal history is limited but drug-related. She was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and of permitting her place to be used for the commission of a crime on 13 May 1994. For those offences she was convicted and fined $450. The offences were thus minor in nature.

On 20 April 1998 she was convicted of the possession on
20 April 1998 of a thing for use in connection with the commission of a crime defined in Part 2 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, namely unlawful production of a dangerous drug and of possession of a dangerous drug specified in the third schedule. On those charges she was sentenced after a trial in the Supreme Court to a term of imprisonment of two years, wholly suspended for a period of five years.

In his sentencing remarks the sentencing Judge made mention of the fact that the applicant had been hard-working and a devoted mother involved in community activities. He expressed the view that the applicant had displayed, and I quote, "genuine and deep-seated remorse". It is implicit in His Honour's reasons that he concluded that the applicant was shocked at the prospect of imprisonment and that this would tend against the prospects of her re-offending.

I now turn to the circumstances surrounding the offences under consideration. The offences were discovered when police raided the premises which the applicant rented. Methylamphetamine and traces of it were found at various places. The total weight of drug found was .89 grams.

Items used in the taking of the drug were found in the applicant's bedroom and in the boot and glovebox…

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 [1999] QCA 85
Case: [1999] QCA 85
Decision Date: 19/03/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, McMurdo P, White J and Muir J heard an appeal against sentence brought by Darlene Karen Oldfield. Oldfield was convicted of drug possession and permitting a place to be used for drug-related crime. The appeal was against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on her. The appeal court was required to determine whether the sentence was outside the range of a sound sentencing discretion, considering factors such as the small quantity of drugs involved, Oldfield's lack of active involvement in drug production, her changed relationship with the alleged producer, her remorse, and her support for her family.

The appeal court found that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient regard to several mitigating factors. The court acknowledged the seriousness of Oldfield's actions but emphasised that she had shown remorse and was committed to changing her course. The court noted Oldfield's good character and the importance of allowing her the opportunity for self-rehabilitation. The appeal court concluded that the sentence imposed was outside the range of a sound sentencing discretion and allowed the appeal. The sentence was set aside, and Oldfield was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended with an operational period of two years from 30 November 1998.

Orders