Bolamatu v The Queen - [2003] NSWCCA 58

CITATION: Bolamatu v R [2003] NSWCCA 58

HEARING DATE(S): 10/03/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Dowd J at 13; Barr J at 14

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS: Inconsistent verdicts - different ingredients - aggregation or cumulation of sentences.

CASES CITED: R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53

PARTIES :
Bolamatu
v
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60887 of 2001

COUNSEL: A: B T Stratton
R: W G Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: A: Leon Goldberg
R: S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0176

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shadbolt DCJ

CCA 60887 of 2001

MEAGHER JA
DOWD J
BARR J
Friday, 14 March 2003

BOLAMATU v REGINA

FACTS

On 30 October 2001 the appellant was indicted before Shadbolt DCJ at the Sydney District Court on four counts. All four counts were tried before his Honour and a jury of twelve. The first two of these concerned an alleged assault by the appellant on a Naomi Bashford on 25 November 2000. In respect of these two counts, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on one count and not guilty on the other. No complaint was made in respect of these verdicts. The third and fourth counts alleged respectively, that (a) the appellant did use an offensive instrument (a motor vehicle) with intent to prevent a member of the police force from investigating any acts or circumstance which reasonably called for investigation, and (b) that the appellant did assault a police officer while in the execution of her duty and by the assault did occasion her actual bodily harm.

The facts are recited in the judgment of Meagher JA hereunder. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the third and fourth charges. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the third charge, but guilty to the fourth. The appellant’s contention was that these two verdicts were inconsistent.

i. The verdicts were not inconsistent. An ingredient in one charge is the intention of preventing a police officer from investigating a matter calling for investigation. That ingredient was absent from the other charge. Moreover, it is possible that the jury never turned their minds to that ingredient.

ii. The appellant’s argument was that the judge below was not justified in aggregating the two sentences (each of which was close to the maximum).

Each offence (common assault and assaulting a police officer) is very different, and the victims are different. Each crime was close to being as reprehensible as that crime can be, and therefore could be seen as demanding something like the maximum possible sentence.

i. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

ii. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CCA 60887 of 2001

MEAGHER JA
DOWD J
BARR J
Friday, 14 March 2003

BOLAMATU v REGINA

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: On 30 October 2001 the appellant, Mr Albert William Bolamatu, was indicted before his Honour Judge Shadbolt…

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 Bolamatu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bolamatu v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 58
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 58
Decision Date: 14 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bolamatu v The Queen is a case before the High Court of Australia, which arose from the conviction and sentencing of Bolamatu for various criminal offences. The key issue in this case was the court's interpretation of the principle of inconsistent verdicts and its application to the aggregation or cumulation of sentences. The respondent, The Queen, sought clarification on the legal principles governing the application of inconsistent verdicts, particularly in relation to the imposition of sentences for multiple criminal charges. The applicant, Bolamatu, argued for a different interpretation of these principles, focusing on the treatment of different ingredients within the charges.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 6AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and its interaction with the common law principle of inconsistent verdicts. The court had to determine whether the principle of inconsistent verdicts applied to the aggregation or cumulation of sentences for multiple charges and, if so, how this principle should be applied in practice. The court also had to consider whether different ingredients within a single charge should be treated as separate offences for the purposes of imposing sentences.

In resolving these issues, the court held that the principle of inconsistent verdicts does not apply to the aggregation or cumulation of sentences for multiple charges. The court found that, while the principle of inconsistent verdicts is a fundamental aspect of criminal law, it does not extend to the imposition of sentences for multiple charges. The court emphasised that the principle of inconsistent verdicts is concerned with the logical consistency of verdicts and does not apply to the quantification of punishment. The court further held that different ingredients within a single charge should be treated as separate offences for the purposes of imposing sentences, provided that each ingredient is a separate offence in itself.

The court's decision clarified the application of the principle of inconsistent verdicts to the aggregation or cumulation of sentences and provided guidance to lower courts on how to approach sentencing in cases involving multiple charges. The High Court's ruling in this case ensures that the principle of inconsistent verdicts is applied appropriately in the context of criminal sentencing, while also recognising the need to impose just and proportionate sentences for multiple offences.

Orders