Legal Research
Cases
Bradley v The Queen

Bradley v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 69 30 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0042

STEVEN BRADLEY	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, WEINBERG and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 69
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VSC 768 (Osborn JA)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Murder of 16 year old girl in 1983 – Applicant sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 21 years – Whether judge erred in finding youth of applicant at time of offence only relevant ‘to some limited extent’ – Whether trial judge erred in failing to take into account sentencing practices at time of offence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Judge gave sufficient weight to applicant’s youth at time of offence – Judge correct to consider ‘current sentencing practices’ under s 5(2)(b) of Sentencing Act 1991 as practices at time of sentencing – Judge appropriately moderated sentence to accord with principle of ‘equal justice’ – Stalio v The Queen (2012) 46 VR 426 – Sentence within range of current sentences for murder – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G M Hughan	Doogue O’Brien George
For the Crown	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA
TATE JA:

In 2015, after a trial in the Supreme Court sitting at Shepparton, the applicant, now aged 55, was convicted of the 1983 murder of Michelle Buckingham. He was sentenced to a term of 27 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 21 years was fixed. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The applicant originally relied upon four grounds of appeal, but prior to the hearing of this application, he abandoned the first of them. The remaining three grounds are as follows:

2.His Honour erred in finding that the youth of the applicant at the time of the offence was only relevant ‘to some limited extent’.
3.His Honour erred in failing to take into account sentencing practices at the time of the offence.

4. The sentence was manifestly excessive in light of:
·The young age of the applicant at the time of the offence;
·The sentencing practice at the time of the offence;
·Current sentencing practices;
·The age of the applicant at the time of his earliest release;
·The foreseeable recurrence of the applicant’s depressive disorder;
·The applicant having good prospects of rehabilitation; and
·The applicant underwent unusual stress during pre-trial detention.

For reasons which follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

Background facts

On the night of 21 October 1983, Michelle Buckingham, then aged 16, was stabbed to death.

On the morning of 22 October 1983, the applicant approached his brother-in-law, Norman Gribble. He was in a highly agitated state, and had a cut on his hand. Mr Gribble bandaged up the cut and then drove the applicant to an area, not far from…

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 Bradley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bradley v The Queen [2017] VSCA 69
Case: [2017] VSCA 69
Decision Date: 30 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Bradley, sought leave to appeal against his sentence for the 1983 murder of a 16-year-old girl. Bradley was sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 21 years. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the judge erred in his assessment of the relevance of Bradley’s youth at the time of the offence, whether the trial judge failed to consider the sentencing practices of the era, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factor of the applicant’s youth against the gravity of the crime. It was necessary to determine if the judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, particularly the relevance of current sentencing practices under section 5(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court considered if the judge’s consideration of contemporary sentencing practices was appropriate and whether this approach aligned with the principle of equal justice.

The court found that the judge had given sufficient weight to the applicant’s youth and that it was correct to consider current sentencing practices. The judge’s sentence was deemed to be within the range of sentences for murder at the time and was thus not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the judge had appropriately moderated the sentence to accord with the principle of equal justice, referencing the decision in Stalio v The Queen. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders