DPP v Bridle - [2007] VSCA 173

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 111 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
STEVEN DOUGLAS BRIDLE

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV, VINCENT and KELLAM JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 August 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 August 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 173

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing – Appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions – Intentionally causing injury – Community based order imposed – Sentence said to be manifestly inadequate — Whether custodial term required – Young offender – Principles in R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M A Gamble SC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr O P Holdenson QC with Mr R Backwell	Victoria Legal Aid

CHERNOV JA:

This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the Director") against one of the sentences imposed on the respondent, Steven Douglas Bridle, on 29 March 2007 by a judge of the County Court. The respondent, who had no relevant prior convictions, had pleaded guilty before his Honour to one count of intentionally causing serious injury (count 1), one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, cannabis (count 2) and three summary charges. The learned sentencing judge sentenced the respondent as follows. On count 1, he imposed a community-based order ("CBO") for a period of two years on special conditions and, on count 2, one year's imprisonment wholly suspended for two years. Sentences were also imposed in respect of the summary charges. The Director now appeals pursuant to s 567A of the Crimes Act 1958 against the sentence imposed in respect of count 1 on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.

Before dealing with the parties' respective submissions, it is necessary to set out briefly the circumstances of the offending and of the respondent. At the time of the offence he was aged 18 years. He was then an unemployed VCE student at the Box Hill TAFE Institute. In order to generate income for himself he trafficked in cannabis and he was also a regular user of the drug. One of his customers was Andrew Kantaras, but it seems that recently they had had a falling out. At approximately 11 pm on 9 February 2006, Kantaras drove some friends to the Burvale Hotel that is located at the corner of Springvale Road and Burwood Highway. They planned to continue their drinking there and listen to a band. After Kantaras parked his car in the car park of the hotel most of his group went inside but Kantaras stayed at his car, cleaning out some of its contents. He was approached by the respondent who was affected by alcohol or drugs, or both (he later claimed to have no recollection of this part of the night). The respondent accused Kantaras of telling others of his trafficking and that he had a safe at his home (where he kept, amongst other items, drugs and cash). The respondent,…

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 DPP v Bridle

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Bridle [2007] VSCA 173
Case: [2007] VSCA 173
Decision Date: 27 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Bridle, the appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, challenged the sentencing imposed by the County Court on the respondent, Bridle, for intentionally causing injury. The court was called upon to determine whether the sentence of a community based order was manifestly inadequate and whether a custodial term was warranted. The respondent had pleaded guilty to a charge of intentionally causing injury and was sentenced to a community based order with a duration of two years. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that a custodial term was necessary.

The court considered the principles outlined in R v Mills, which emphasised the importance of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing. The court noted that while the respondent was a young offender, the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence were significant factors. The court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of intentionally causing injury and the need to balance the interests of the community with the rehabilitative needs of the offender. It also took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the respondent’s age, background, and the impact of the offence on the victim.

After carefully weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence of a community based order was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentence appropriately reflected the principles of sentencing and adequately addressed the objectives of punishment, including deterrence and rehabilitation. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders