Buddle v The Queen - [2018] NSWCCA 35

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Buddle v R [2018] NSWCCA 35
Hearing dates: 5 March 2018
Date of orders: 05 March 2018
Decision date: 14 March 2018
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Campbell J at [34]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal - break, enter and steal – long criminal history – applicant on parole at time of offending – no arguable ground of appeal - leave to appeal refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Buddle v R [2006] NSWCCA 236
R v Buddle (Court of Criminal Appeal, Grove and Barr JJ, 22 June 1998)
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brett Craig Buddle (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr BC Buddle (In person)
Ms HR Roberts (Respondent)
Solicitors:
---
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/113802
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

12 August 2016

Before:

His Honour Judge Haesler SC

File Number(s):

2016/113802

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: Johnson J’s reasons for judgment reflect my reasons for joining in the making on 5 March 2018 of an order refusing the applicant leave to appeal.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Brett Craig Buddle, sought leave to appeal with respect to an aggregate sentence passed in the Wollongong District Court on 12 August 2016 following his pleas of guilty to two counts of break, enter and steal contrary to s.112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900.
The sentencing Judge imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for three years and nine months commencing on 13 April 2016 and expiring on 12 January 2020, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months expiring on 12 December 2018. His Honour nominated an indicative sentence of three years’ imprisonment for each offence. The maximum penalty for an offence under s.112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 is imprisonment for 14 years.
The hearing of the application for leave to appeal against sentence proceeded before the Court on 5 March 2018. The Applicant was unrepresented and made written and oral submissions in support of the application.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court made an order refusing leave to appeal against sentence with reasons to be provided at a later time. What follows constitutes my reasons for joining in the order of the Court made at the conclusion of the hearing.

Grounds of Appeal

The written grounds of appeal filed by the Applicant on 15 November 2017 sought to challenge the conclusions reached by the sentencing Judge in certain respects and made complaints about the legal representation for the Applicant in the District Court as well as contending that there had been a deterioration in the Applicant’s family circumstances which bore upon the determination of the application.
At the hearing before this Court, the Applicant stepped back from aspects of his filed grounds and sought to rely upon three broad…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Buddle v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 35
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 35
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence arose from a decision of the County Court of Victoria. The appellant, Buddle, was convicted of breaking, entering, and stealing from a dwelling. Buddle had a significant criminal history and was on parole at the time of the offence. The primary issue for the court was whether the County Court had erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether there were any other arguable grounds of appeal that could provide a basis for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the County Court was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence. The court found no error in the County Court's assessment of Buddle's criminal history and parole status as aggravating factors. The court emphasised that the County Court had appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The Court of Appeal concluded that there were no arguable grounds of appeal that would warrant leave to appeal. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the County Court had correctly applied the relevant principles of sentencing.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the County Court was appropriate and that there were no arguable grounds of appeal that would warrant further consideration. The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of respecting the sentencing decisions of the County Court, unless there is a clear error in the application of the law or the sentence is manifestly excessive. In this case, the Court of Appeal found no such errors and refused leave to appeal. The original sentence of the County Court was upheld.

Orders