Blundell v The Queen

[2019] ACTCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Blundell v The Queen

Citation:

[2019] ACTCA 34

Hearing Date:

5 November 2019  

DecisionDate:

22 November 2019

Before:

Murrell CJ, Elkaim and Rangiah JJ

Decision:

Appeal granted

Catchwords:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – In General and Right of Appeal – appeal against sentence – discount for plea of guilty – manifestly excessive nonparole period – prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33(1), 35(2), 37

Cases Cited:

Bugmyv The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Cole v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 3
Drayton v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 44
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Miles v the Queen [2016] ACTCA 54
R v Blundell [2019] ACTSC 42
R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 10
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9
R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298
Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9

Parties:

Paul Anthony Blundell (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

J Campbell (Appellant)

T Hickey (Respondent)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 10 of 2019  

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  Supreme Court of the ACT

Before:  Burns J

Date of Decision:         15 February 2019

Case Title:  R v Blundell

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 42

THE COURT:

1. On 15 February 2019, Burns J sentenced the appellant in respect of 44 charges, 12 of which were re-sentences for breach of good behaviour orders imposed by Refshauge J on 12 November 2015.

1. The aggregate sentence was 8 years and 5 months' imprisonment, commencing 15 August 2017 and expiring on 14 January 2026. His Honour set a nonparole period of 6 years and 6 months, with the offender being eligible for parole on 14 February 2024.

1. The notice of appeal filed 14 March 2019 specifies five grounds of appeal.

1. The five grounds, in summary form, are as follows:

(1)His Honour made a factual error in finding that the appellant had been imprisoned in 2014;

(2)His Honour should have applied more than a 10% discount for the pleas of guilty which arose after a Criminal Case Conference;

(3)His Honour should have stated the penalty that would have been imposed for a number of offences but for the pleas of guilty;

(4)The total sentence of 8 years and 5 months was manifestly excessive;

(5)The nonparole period of 6 years and 6 months was also manifestly excessive.

1. Grounds 1, 3 (in part) and 4 were appropriately abandoned in the appellant’s written submissions. The result is that there is no complaint about any individual sentence (other than relating to the degree of discount for the guilty pleas) and there is no complaint about the total period of imprisonment.

Ground 2: Discount for plea of guilty

1. His Honour dealt with the discount following the Criminal Case Conferences at [49]:

Clearly, nothing less than immediate terms of imprisonment are appropriate. I take into account your…