Bradbury v The State of Western Australia

Bradbury appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in two respects. The appellant, Bradbury, was convicted of two counts of unlawful detention, one count of unlawful wounding, and one count of aggravated armed robbery. The court considered whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that Bradbury was not genuinely remorseful for his offending and whether the judge was wrong not to find that the onerous conditions of Bradbury's prior and future incarceration in relation to the offences were mitigating. The court found that there was no error in the sentencing judge's finding that Bradbury was not genuinely remorseful. The sentencing judge's conclusion was based on Bradbury's lack of remorse in his pre-sentence report, his failure to acknowledge the impact of his offending on the victims, and his failure to take responsibility for his offending. The court found that the sentencing judge was correct in this regard. The court also found that there was no error in the sentencing judge's failure to find that the onerous conditions of Bradbury's prior and future incarceration were mitigating. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the conditions of Bradbury's prior and future incarceration and had appropriately weighed them in the overall sentencing process. The court found that the sentencing judge's approach was not erroneous.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge was correct in finding that Bradbury was not genuinely remorseful and that the onerous conditions of his prior and future incarceration were not mitigating factors. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence and that there was no error in the sentencing process.