Director of Public Prosecutions v Bronson

[2022] VCC 2307

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 21-02633

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

STUART CHARLES BRONSON

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 November 2022 and 14 November 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bronson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 2307

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence

Catchwords:             Obtaining Property by Deception – Self-Represented Accused – Plea

Sentence:                 Fine of $1,600 with conviction

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. McCarthy	Office of Public Prosecutions
The Accused was not represented

HIS HONOUR:

1The accused man, Stuart Bronson, has pleaded guilty to once charge of obtaining property by deception.  As to the facts, the accused advertised a car on the well-known website Carsales.com.au.  The price was $11,749.  The car was registered to the accused's de facto partner.

2The victim saw the ad and commenced negotiations via text messages.  Ultimately the price of $11,749 was agreed and the accused was asked to and sent bank details to the victim.  The victim then transferred that amount, $11,749 to the accused's bank account on 25 August 2020.

3The car was to be delivered the next day or in the next day or two.  It never arrived. 

4The victim sought the return of the transferred money, indicating he would pay by bank cheque when the car was delivered.  Again, the accused did not do as any decent person would, he did not transfer the money back, nor did he deliver the car.

5Investigations reveal that the accused withdrew the transferred money from his own bank immediately.  I have no doubt whatsoever that the accused never intended to send back or refund the money or deliver the car.  It was, in my view, from beginning to end a scam.

6The deception of the victim had an added element of poignancy and sadness.  The victim, who was not yet 60, arranged to buy the car as a gift for his own son.  It was a meaningful parting gift, as the victim was in the last stages of his pancreatic cancer.  He died a month after he was defrauded by the accused. 

7It is not suggested that the accused set about his fraud because of the victim's vulnerability, but the consequences for the victim's family of this protracted criminal case, has no doubt added to their grieving.

8I do not add to my assessment of the gravity of the offending or the accused's moral culpability any adverse weight because of the victim's unfortunate circumstances.

9There is an added aspect to this, as I have learnt from the accused today, that he himself has been diagnosed with cancer and discussed as much with the victim at the time.  He also indicates that his de facto partner has been recently diagnosed with cancer and is being treated in her native country of Vietnam, surrounded by her family.

10In respect of speaking of the victim's unfortunate circumstances, I raise this to tell the whole story as part of the human dimension of sentencing.  Always in sentencing nothing is simple and straight forward.  There is always a unique aspect or more than one in each sentencing task.

11The gravity of the offending here is the serious breach of trust.  Sales offered and accepted online are premised on honesty.  Here Mr Bronson breached that trust comprehensively. 

12Your actions undermine the capacity of online platforms to enable commerce between individuals to occur.  These platforms are a part of modern life.  They increase the size of potential buyers and enable ordinary citizens to trade what they own.  Those who defraud others via these platforms must expect punishment that operates to deter others.

13I keep in mind that the amount involved was $11,749.  Your moral culpability is high, as you had ample opportunity prior to any investigation to refund the money as asked at the time or deliver the car.

14I note that you do have relevant prior convictions that now have been proved or admitted.  Though those convictions are now very old, the last being in 2005, most concerningly there was a conviction in July 2002 which saw the Magistrates' Court impose a three month sentence of imprisonment that was wholly suspended.  The amount involved seems coincidently to be about $11,000.

Personal circumstances

15I know little other than what I have learnt today.  This is because in the past but not at present, you Mr Bronson, have chosen to approach this criminal proceeding in an idiosyncratic way.  The charge could have and should have been dealt with in the Magistrates' Court and quickly and efficiently in late 2020, or at the least in 2021.  The fact that it is now November 2022 and the case has just resolved in the County Court is due entirely to the approach that you took, Mr Bronson.

16Before elaborating, I make it clear that you are not more severely punished because of your choices to seek a jury trial in the County Court. What happens is that you do not get the benefits of the early plea and the weight to be given to remorse is more limited.  I do note that you have, as you said you would, undertaken to repay the victim's family and have done so by a payment of $1,500 in October this year.

17That said, it should be noted that in respect to the trial the only document that I can see that you had filed as a self-represented person, read as follows:

This security interest is addressed to the bailee in possession by persons personal representative on behalf of beneficiary Stuart Charles, in being, Bronson in person in accordance with his will, Gods Law, the unwritten law of the land, the maxim Iniquum est ingenuis hominibus non esse liberam rerum suarum alienationem and in compliance with but not limited nor subject to the subordinate Personal Property Securities Act 2009 No.30 and KJV of the Bible, 1 Samuel Ch 8 v 1-22; over all titles, certificates, contracts, licenses, registrations, trusts, accounts, and all property hereinafter listed that by law devolves by Will, in accordance with but not limited to, Imperial Act 1837 No. 26 s. 3 Stuart Charles Bronson in person debtor

18I could read on.  This gives the flavour of Mr Bronson's idiosyncratic approach to his serious criminality.

19Mr Bronson's mental state or his intellectual capacity is not compromised, it seems to me.  He has a level of intelligence; he just chose to deal with his serious criminal allegation with the sorts of documentation and the sort of approach that I have outlined.  That continued through the period of time there were directions hearings and case management in the course of these proceedings.

20Mr Bronson represented himself.  He approached the Court hearings by referring to himself in the third person, or by other nomenclature that made no sense.  His approach has delayed and obstructed.

21Anyone who represents themselves in Court has a responsibility to assist the Court to deal with their case justly and efficiently.  Court lists in the busiest trial court in this State are still beleaguered due to Covid pandemics.  That means the level of cooperation from the parties must be at its highest, so as the serious problems can be best addressed.

22Mr Bronson's approach is not unique. As this Court deals with accused or appellants who represent themselves by choice, and some adopt the language Mr Bronson used here.  It is my experience that this is simply narcissistic attention seeking, designed to frustrate the Court and the criminal justice system.

23Currently there is little the Courts can do as an accused can represent themselves by choice.  That right or capacity is restricted when the offending is of a sexual nature or involves family violence.  The restrictions relate to preventing a self-represented person from cross-examining a complainant or a vulnerable witness.  The point that I am making here that should be understood is that the law has already restricted the right of someone to represent themselves.  That line has been crossed. The criminal justice system is unduly delayed because self-represented accused seek trials before the County Court and that is, trials before juries for cases that could be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, either by a plea of not guilty or by a plea of guilty.

24I could expand on the wastefulness and the loss of opportunity for the Courts to hear other serious cases in a timely way, and the delays that are caused to witnesses and victims, and the stress to witnesses in the self-represented cases, but I think I have said enough.

25The solutions, such as expanding those cases that an accused cannot represent themselves must be considered, in my view, by our government; or restricting those who can represent themselves who are not genuine.

26Mr Bronson's approach which has caused wastefulness in time and resources, there are worse examples and ultimately Mr Bronson has compromised and pleaded guilty.  He has unfortunately not attended Court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.  He was brought to Court today and his approach has been a different one. 

27He has been genuinely apologetic to the Court as to the way things have unfolded, in particular his non-attendance when I asked him to be here.  He has been in prison for some time, some days and has significant health problems that have been exacerbated by his predicament.

28He has pleaded guilty and he has done so in Covid times, that attracts a significant benefit albeit in the context that I have said. 

29This case is one that on hearing of his medical condition, but also on hearing of the plight that his wife currently is undergoing, having heard from the prosecution, ordinarily a sentence of some gaol or a community corrections order would be appropriate.  I do not see that they are necessary in this case and a fine, which will be substantial to Mr Bronson because of his circumstances, is in my view within range.

30Thus for the offence of obtaining property by deception I impose with conviction a fine of $1,600.

31I make orders for restitution and orders for forfeiture that have been sought by the prosecution.

32Had Mr Bronson pleaded not guilty and run a trial, I would have imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment.

33Is there anything further required?

34MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour, just in relation to the restitution order, I am just looking at the particulars of the draft order and I apologise for not knowing this earlier, the draft order says that it is the Commissioner of Police should restore the stolen goods.  It does not seem like the appropriate respondent.

35HIS HONOUR:  I don't know who it is.  It is either the OPP, or the complainant at their address.  I do not know.

36OFFENDER:  Sorry, Your Honour, could I interrupt?  I was just listening to the - did he say the Leo Bell, was it?

37HIS HONOUR:  I beg your pardon?  Did he say?

38OFFENDER:  Sorry, I thought the prosecutor said something about the payment going to Leo Bell?

39HIS HONOUR:  No.

40OFFENDER:  My apologies.

41HIS HONOUR: The commissioner of Police he said. It says, 'Upon conviction for that the Court orders pursuant to s 81(1A) of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the Chief Commissioner of Police restore the stolen goods, namely $11,749 cash to Leo Bell'. Well, they do not have it.

42MR McCARTHY:  Yes, I do not think that – unless the Commissioner as seized the money.

43HIS HONOUR:  It is not the properly worded ‑ ‑ ‑

44OFFENDER:  The money was sent to Leo Bell, Your Honour.  I can show you my bank account.

45HIS HONOUR:  Yes, yes.  I understand that, continue to do that.  What is the order that I make that ensure that it is a court order that he pays Mr Bell?

46MR McCARTHY:  Yes, and that is – I am just asking my instructor to clarify that, Your Honour.

47HIS HONOUR:  All right. Is there any other order?

48MR McCARTHY:  No, Your Honour.  It is only the disposal and restitution order as ‑ ‑ ‑

49HIS HONOUR:  What's the disposal of?

50MR McCARTHY:  It is an insignificant item; it is a handwritten note.

51HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I will sign that disposal.  So the note that was – what time frame are we looking at with regard to?

52MR McCARTHY:  I think my instructor is just – thank you for Your Honour's indulgence.  I will just ‑ ‑ ‑

53HIS HONOUR:  Not at all.  Not at all.

54MR McCARTHY:  Yes, it was an error, Your Honour.  I apologise.  It should be – it is not the Chief Commissioner of Police that should restore the stolen goods.  It is the accused who should restore the stolen goods to Leo Bell.

55HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Well they are not stolen because they are obtained by deception.

56MR McCARTHY:  Sorry, yes.  Obtained, Your Honour.

57HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Do you need to draft another order and get me to sign it and forward it to the accused?

58MR McCARTHY:  Yes, and my instructor is ‑ ‑ ‑

59HIS HONOUR:  That will be done.  Now if it is done in time for him to get it before he leaves the cells, that is fine.  If it is not, it will be emailed to him once he gets going.

60MR McCARTHY:  As the Court pleases.  I will have my instructor file that.

61HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Very kind.  Mr Bronson, because you have been brought here by Corrections, by the police, you must return downstairs ‑ ‑ ‑

62OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

63HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ for them to clear that you are to be released.  By that time, I will have signed an order imposing the fine upon you with conviction.  That brings the matter to an end.  Do you understand?

64OFFENDER:  (No audible response.)

65HIS HONOUR:  Actually if your instructor is working on that, we will continue to do that but Mr Bronson, it is necessary that you go downstairs with the Corrections people now.

66OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

67HIS HONOUR:  Because it will just take a moment.  The order will be sent down.  It will not be very long that you will be down there, thank you.

68OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you, Your Honour.  Is that, is that the end of the case?

69HIS HONOUR:  Go with him now.

70OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

71HIS HONOUR:  If you do not want to take those bits of paper, you do not have to.

72OFFENDER:  Yes, I don't really want to.

73HIS HONOUR:  No, they are just certified extracts, just leave them.

74OFFENDER:  Right.  Can the Court destroy them or something?  Or do I have to destroy them?

75HIS HONOUR:  No, do not worry about it.

76OFFENDER:  Okay, thank you.  Thank you, Your Honour.

77HIS HONOUR:  Mr McCarthy, thank you very much and to your instructor and to the counsel who were engaged in this difficult matter over the time.

78MR McCARTHY:  As the Court pleases.

‑ ‑ ‑