Police v Bond - [2014] QMC 29

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Bond [2014] QMC 29

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

FRANK HERBERT BOND

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG184454/14(9), MAG185067/14(9)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2014

MAGISTRATE:

Young SM

ORDER:

Defendant is committed to sentence in the District Court.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the defendant may be adequately punished on summary conviction

Criminal Code, s 552D

COUNSEL:

Gangemi (sergeant) appeared for prosecution

P Campion appeared for defendant

SOLICITORS:

ATSILS for defendant

Prosecution on own behalf

The Defendant, Mr Frank Herbert Bond has entered a plea of guilty to a total of 11 offences, primarily arising from an extended incident that occurred during the night of 13 September 2014 in what I have previously described as a “methamphetamine fuelled rampage”.

The charges in short compass are:

AOBH whilst armed x 3

AOBH x 2

Common Assault x 4

Possess dangerous drug (methyl methamphetamine); and

Fail to dispose needle and syringe.

All charges carry the potential for significant periods of gaol time however the most serious charges are the assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed which each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

I do not propose to set out in any detail the facts and circumstances of the charges however actual violence (punching and kicking) and threats of violence (involving a knife and a hammer) were perpetrated against his de-facto partner, who had recently given birth, as well as to his long time female friend together with assaults upon two of his young teenage children (involving pinning them helpless and holding a knife to their throats with threats to cut).

That these offences were committed against his family only serves to highlight the severity of his offending and the tragic consequences of his drug use. He is 32 years of age and, I am told, remorseful for his actions. He has entered pleas of guilty at a very early stage however has limited recollection of what he did on that night.

Despite a handwritten note from one of the victims indicating support for Mr Bond I am not inclined to fully accept his indication of remorse as by injecting the drug he made a deliberate choice that put lives of several family members in jeopardy and as it is a matter for which he has previously served time in gaol his continued use of illicit drugs tempers the weight to be attached to his expression of remorse.

His criminal history is poor and although his history does not disclose any similar incident he has been imprisoned for, among other things, supplying dangerous drugs in 2009. Mr Bond has been the subject of various community based orders (some of which he has breached) however the previous orders and penalties have not had the desired deterrent effect, ultimately resulting in the charges presently before the Court.

These charges might be matters for which a…

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 Police v Bond

Details

AGLC: Police v Bond [2014] QMC 29
Case: [2014] QMC 29
Decision Date: 23 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v Bond, the defendant, Bond, was charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act. The dispute revolved around whether the defendant could be adequately punished through a summary conviction or if the offence warranted a more severe penalty in the District Court. The matter was brought before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

The legal issue before the court was whether the offence with which Bond was charged warranted a sentence beyond the scope of a summary conviction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the punishment available under summary conviction was sufficient or if it was necessary to refer the case to the District Court for sentencing. The court was required to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, as well as the statutory provisions governing the punishment available under a summary conviction.

The Magistrates' Court of Victoria found that the offence with which Bond was charged was severe enough to warrant a sentence that could not be adequately imposed through summary conviction. The court held that the punishment available under summary conviction was insufficient and that the case should be referred to the District Court for sentencing. Consequently, the court committed the defendant to sentence in the District Court.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory framework and the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the District Court was the appropriate forum to determine the appropriate penalty for the offence committed by Bond. The Magistrates' Court, therefore, committed the defendant to sentence in the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant is committed to sentence in the District Court.

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.

CITATION:	Police v Bond [2014] QMC 29
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v FRANK HERBERT BOND (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG184454/14(9), MAG185067/14(9)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Charge
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Kingaroy
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Kingaroy
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2014
MAGISTRATE:	Young SM
ORDER:	Defendant is committed to sentence in the District Court.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the defendant may be adequately punished on summary conviction Criminal Code, s 552D
COUNSEL:	Gangemi (sergeant) appeared for prosecution P Campion appeared for defendant
SOLICITORS:	ATSILS for defendant Prosecution on own behalf