Buchester v Johnson

Case [2014] QDC 196


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Buchester v Johnson [2014] QDC 196

PARTIES:

SHANNON MARY BUCHESTER
(Appellant)

v

BENJAMIN JOHNSON
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD – 1089/14

DIVISION:

Criminal Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal s 222 Justice Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2014

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

1. APPEAL DISMISSED
2. MAGISTRATES COURT DECISION AFFIRMED

COUNSEL:

Appellant – A D Anderson

Respondent – K D Ashen

Offences the Subject of Appeal

  1. On 10 March 2014 the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane to the following offences:

1. Unauthorised dealing with shop goods on 8 February 2013 (a pair of women’s gloves): s 5 Regulatory Offences Act[1];

[1] Maximum penalty: six penalty units.

2. 35 counts of Stealing (on various dates between 1 September 2012 and 16 February 2013): s 398 Criminal Code[2];

3. 22 counts of Fraud (on various dates between October 2012 and January 2013): s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code[3]; and

4. 3 counts of Attempted Fraud (on various dates between October 2012 and January 2013): s 408C(1)(d) & s 535 Criminal Code.[4]

[2] Maximum penalty: five years imprisonment.

[3] Maximum penalty: five years imprisonment.

[4] Maximum penalty: two and a half years imprisonment.

Sentences Imposed

  1. In sentencing the Appellant, Her Honour said:-

“For the 22 frauds, you are convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. For the three attempted frauds, the same. For stealing, that’s the 25 stealing offences, four months imprisonments. And I order that the parole release date is today. So you will be on parole for six months, which I think is an adequate period of time for you to show your proof that you won’t do it again. In relation to the unlawfully taking away shop goods, taking into account the sentence I’ve just imposed, you are convicted but not further punished. And I’ll order restitution for the amount outstanding, which is the $1,429.15. Now, I’ll also put in there time to pay, one month, or SPER. And you can make arrangements with SPER to pay it by instalments. And in case it’s possible, I also order all items forfeited to the Crown for return to the rightful owners where possible. I know that largely that may well have been done.”[5]

[5] Transcript, MAG-33198 & 54875/13, p 3 [41-47] and p 4 [1-5].

Offending Conduct

  1. The offending conduct occurred over a five and a half month period from September 2012 to February 2013.[6]

    [6] Submissions on Behalf of Shannon Mary Buchester, page 3, para 18.

  1. The Appellant stole thirty-five clothing items from David Jones (Queens Plaza) and Myer (Carindale and Brisbane City) stores. The fraud and attempted fraud charges arise from the Appellant offering for sale twenty-five of these items on eBay. Twenty-two of these items sold (fraud) and three of the items did not sell (attempted fraud). Ten of the stolen items were retrieved by police on 16 February 2013.[7]

    [7] Ibid, para 19.

  1. The total value…

Continue reading Buchester v Johnson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Buchester v Johnson [2014] QDC 196
Case
[2014] QDC 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Buchester against Johnson was heard by the Court of Appeal, addressing a dispute arising from an incident of domestic violence. Buchester contested the conviction for assault and unlawful imprisonment handed down by the Magistrates Court, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the decision. Johnson, on the other hand, defended the Magistrates Court's judgment, asserting that the evidence was robust and justified the conviction.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish the elements of assault and unlawful imprisonment beyond reasonable doubt, and if the Magistrates Court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decision. The Court needed to examine the quality and reliability of the evidence presented, the application of the legal standards by the Magistrates Court, and whether there had been any errors that could have affected the outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrates Court had appropriately assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal standards. The court determined that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish the alleged offences. The Court of Appeal held that there were no procedural errors or misapplications of law that would warrant overturning the Magistrates Court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

The court's decision was final, affirming the Magistrates Court's judgment and dismissing Buchester's appeal. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the decision of the Magistrates Court be affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. APPEAL DISMISSED

2. MAGISTRATES COURT DECISION AFFIRMED

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.