Buddle v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 236

CITATION: Buddle v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 236

HEARING DATE(S): 01/08/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Hoeben J at 2; Rothman J at 45

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal - discount for plea of guilty - failure to backdate sentences - change in family circumstances after sentence - discount for assistance to police.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES: Brett Craig Buddle - Applicant
Regina - Respondent Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/980

COUNSEL: Applicant in person
D Frearson SC - Respondent Crown

SOLICITORS: Applicant in person
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/41/0134

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phelan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20/10/2004

2006/980

SPIGELMAN CJ
HOEBEN J
ROTHMAN J
Thursday 3 August 2006

Brett Craig BUDDLE v REGINA

JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Hoeben J.

2 HOEBEN J:

Offences and sentence

Crimes Act

3 In relation to each offence, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 20 October 2004 and to expire on 19 October 2008 with a balance of term of 2 years to expire on 19 October 2010. Each sentence was to be served concurrently.

4 The applicant, who appears for himself, has challenged the severity of those sentences on a number of bases.

Background to offences

5 On 13 July 2001 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court for the offence of armed robbery. The sentence passed was a non-parole period of imprisonment for 3 years with a balance of term of 3 years. The sentence was to commence on 10 October 2000. The applicant was released to parole on 9 October 2003. He was returned to custody on 14 December 2003. All of these offences occurred between the date on which the applicant was released to parole and when he was returned to custody. On 17 December 2003 the applicant’s parole was revoked and he was ordered to serve the balance of parole for the robbery offence of 2 years 10 months and 15 days commencing on 13 December 2003 and expiring on 27 October 2006.

6 On 16 September 2003 authority had…

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 Buddle v Regina

Details

AGLC: Buddle v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 236
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 236
Decision Date: 3 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Buddle v Regina, the respondent appealed against his sentence for drug trafficking. The dispute before the court involved the appropriateness of the sentencing discount for a plea of guilty, the failure to backdate sentences for time spent on remand, a change in the offender's family circumstances after sentencing, and the discount for assistance to police. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether the Court of Appeal should have exercised its discretion to impose a new sentence. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the factors relevant to determining the discount for a plea of guilty and the appropriate weight to give to the offender's assistance to police. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to backdate the sentences for time spent on remand and the change in the offender's family circumstances after sentencing warranted a reconsideration of the overall sentence.

The High Court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly consider the relevant principles of sentencing. The court noted that the trial judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to the offender's assistance to police and in not backdating the sentences. The High Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors. The Court also held that the change in the offender's family circumstances after sentencing was not a factor that warranted a reconsideration of the overall sentence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for the re-sentencing of the offender. The Court of Appeal was directed to consider the appropriate discount for the offender's plea of guilty, the failure to backdate the sentences, and the offender's assistance to police, while also taking into account the principles of proportionality and the need for consistency in sentencing.

Orders