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 AFFIRMEDCOUNSEL:
Appellant – A D Anderson
Respondent – K D Ashen
Offences the Subject of Appeal
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
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
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.
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.
The total value…
Continue reading Buchester v Johnson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Buchester v Johnson [2014] QDC 196
- Case
- [2014] QDC 196
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.