SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Bloxsome v The Queen |
Citation: | [2020] ACTCA 52 |
Hearing Date: | On the papers |
DecisionDate: | 13 November 2020 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Loukas-Karlsson J and Berman AJ |
Decision: | Appeal allowed. The appellant is resentenced to seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of four years and nine months. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – SENTENCE – Re-sentence – Intentional wounding – Unlawful confinement – Aggravated robbery – Take motor vehicle without consent – Aggravated burglary – Damage property – Where some convictions were quashed on appeal – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether sentence for aggravated robbery and take motor vehicle should be concurrent – Impact of COVID-19 on the appellant |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 74(1) |
Cases Cited: | Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | Rodney Bloxsome (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel M Jones (Appellant) S Drumgold SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Boxall Legal (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 21 of 2019 |
Decisions under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 1 April 2019 Case Title: R v Featherstone; R v Bloxsome (No 2) Citation: [2019] ACTSC 90 Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 15 August 2019 Case Title: R v Bloxsome Citation: [2019] ACTSC 217 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
In 2019, the appellant was sentenced by Mossop J (the sentencing judge) for eight offences: R v Bloxsome [2019] ACTSC 217 (Bloxsome). A jury had found the appellant guilty of five counts and he had pleaded guilty to the remaining three.
Two of the counts of which the appellant was found guilty were allegations of sexual intercourse without consent. Those convictions were overturned on 3 July 2020: Featherstone v The Queen; Bloxsome v Queen [2020] ACTCA 33 (Featherstone and Bloxsome). With the agreement of the parties, the appellant’s challenges to sentence were considered separately.
This judgment deals with the consequences of the quashing of two convictions, discrete challenges to the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, and the impact on sentencing of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The jury found the appellant guilty on the following counts:
(a)Count 4:…
Continue reading Bloxsome v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bloxsome v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 52
- Case
- [2020] ACTCA 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of some convictions being quashed on appeal, and whether the sentences for aggravated robbery and taking a motor vehicle without consent should have been imposed concurrently. The court also considered the impact of COVID-19 on the appellant.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentence was indeed excessive. The court applied principles of sentencing, considering the gravity of the offences, the appellant's circumstances, and the need for proportionality. The impact of COVID-19 was a factor in the court's assessment of the overall sentence. The appellant was resentenced to a total term of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and nine months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed. The appellant is resentenced to seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of four years and nine months.
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.