Bland v The Queen - [2001] NTSC 31

Bland v The Queen [2001] NTSC 31
PARTIES:BLAND, Dexter Middleton
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:9915488
DELIVERED:  4 May 2001
HEARING DATES:  26 April 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW

Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – indictment – whether sentence not in accordance with the law – whether circumstance of aggravation to be charged and pleaded to separately.
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), s 112
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 305
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Cox
Respondent:  M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:NTLAC
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0114
Number of pages:  7

Mar0114
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Bland v The Queen [2001] NTSC 31
No. 9915488

BETWEEN:
DEXTER MIDDLETON BLAND

Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 4 May 2001)

The applicant seeks to have the court reopen proceedings in which he was sentenced to imprisonment by me on 22 August 2000. The application is made pursuant to s 112 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (NT).

The sentence imposed is said to be not in accordance with the law because I proceeded to sentence the applicant where the circumstance of aggravation upon which I relied was not charged in the indictment (contrary to s 305(4) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)) leading to error in determining the maximum penalty.
The indictment charged the applicant in the following terms:
“Between 3 July 1999 and 5 July 1999 at Yulara in the Northern Territory of Australia, did steal cash to the value of about $116,966.55, the property of Ayers Rock Corporation”.
It was for that that the applicant was committed to this Court.
The offence of stealing is to be found in s 210(1) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. If the value of the thing stolen exceeds $100,000, there is a circumstance of aggravation, and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years (s 210(2)).
The applicant was represented by counsel and pleaded guilty. It is not suggested that he lacked any understanding of the English language.
The facts put by the prosecutor at trial proved the offence and the circumstance of aggravation. They were admitted by the applicant. During the course of submissions, with reference to co-called comparative sentences, I said that they were “under $100,000” and that the maximum penalty was less then that prescribed for this case (transcript p 7). When sentencing the applicant, I said that “The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 14 years since the value of the money stolen exceeded $100,000”. At no stage of the proceedings or immediately thereafter did the prosecutor or counsel, who then appeared for the applicant, seek to persuade me that my view would lead to a sentence being imposed that was not in accordance with the law.
The point is now taken that the…

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 Bland v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bland v The Queen [2001] NTSC 31
Case: [2001] NTSC 31
Decision Date: 4 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bland v The Queen was heard before the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Bland, was charged with murder and subsequently convicted. Bland appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge had failed to correctly apply the law regarding the charging and pleading of circumstances of aggravation. The appellant contended that the trial judge should have required the prosecution to charge and plead the circumstances of aggravation separately from the main charge of murder, and that the failure to do so rendered the sentence not in accordance with the law.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to require the prosecution to charge and plead circumstances of aggravation separately rendered the sentence not in accordance with the law. This issue required the court to examine the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the proper procedure for charging and pleading circumstances of aggravation in a murder trial. The court also needed to consider the impact of any procedural error on the fairness and legality of the trial and sentence.

The court found that while the trial judge's failure to require the prosecution to charge and plead circumstances of aggravation separately was a procedural error, it did not render the sentence not in accordance with the law. The court held that the error did not affect the fairness or legality of the trial or sentence, as the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the error. The court further found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in relation to the charge of murder and the circumstances of aggravation, and that the sentence was therefore in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court did not make any further orders, as the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court's decision clarified the legal requirements for charging and pleading circumstances of aggravation in a murder trial, and affirmed the principle that procedural errors do not necessarily render a sentence unlawful if they do not prejudice the defendant.

Orders