Police v Broederlow

Case [2019] QMC 2

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:   

Police v Broederlow [2019] QMC 2

PARTIES:

COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE
SERVICE
v
BROEDERLOW, Ethan Shane
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BEEN MAG – 2230/19

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Sentence hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

12 April, 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

9 April and 12 April, 2019

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate D MacKenzie

ORDER:

The only sentencing outcome available to this court following the defendant’s conviction for the offence of possessing a short firearm in a public place pursuant to Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act is 1 year’s imprisonment served wholly in a corrective services facility

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCING PROVISIONS – MANDATORY SENTENCING PROVISIONS – where the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of possessing a short firearm in a public place pursuant to Section 50(1) (d) (iii) of the Weapons Act – where the defendant submitted that probation was an alternative sentencing option in lieu of 1 year’s imprisonment served wholly in a corrective services facility.

Section 50(1)(d)(iii) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)
Section 91 & Section 101 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
Commissioner of Police Service v Spencer [2013] QSC 202 (13/0003) Henry, J
Forbes v Jingle [2014] QDC 204 (14/0041) Harrison DCJ
Cronin v Commissioner of Police Service [2016] QDC 63 (15/95) Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ
Sbrezni v Commissioner of Police Service [2016] QDC 18  (15/D18) Robertson, DCJ
Skinner v Commissioner of Police Service [2016] QDC 138  (16/42) Kent QC, DCJ
R v Ham and Anor [2016] QDC 255 (16/422) Chowdhury DCJ
R v Peter Anthony Lewis (Unreported Supreme Court, Brisbane, Indictment No. 377 of 2016; 9 March, 2016
Powley v Queensland Police Service [2017] QDC 152 (193/16) Kent QC DCJ

COUNSEL:

A.Guest, (sol) for the applicant
P. Cavanagh for the prosecution

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Queensland Police Service Prosecutions

  1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the following thirteen offences in this court (in short form):

    1 x Enter premises & commit an indictable offence

    3 x Disqualified Driving

    2 x Possession of a Dangerous Drug

    1 x Possess Utensils

    2 x Drive Unregistered Vehicle

    2 x Drive Uninsured Vehicle

    1 x Possess Explosives

    1 x Possession of a Short Firearm in a public place

  2. The offending ranged from 10 May, 2018 to 22 December, 2018, when the defendant was remanded in custody for the last 112 days.  His is pleas of guilty to all but one of the above charges generate a breach of two suspended sentences of two and six months respectively imposed in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 15 May, 2018.  Approximately half of the offences were committed during the currency of a probation order of two years duration, imposed on 29 July, 2019.  There are no breach of probation proceedings.  The factual bases of these offences are contained in Exhibit 1, a sentencing factual schedule, about which there has been no dispute. 

  1. The defendant’s submission relates only to the possession of a short firearm in a public…

Continue reading Police v Broederlow

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Police v Broederlow [2019] QMC 2
Case
[2019] QMC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Broederlow, who had pleaded guilty to possessing a short firearm in a public place under Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act. The issue at hand was whether the court could impose a sentence of probation instead of the mandatory one-year imprisonment in a corrective services facility. The court had to determine whether the statutory language allowed for an alternative to the mandatory sentence.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the mandatory sentencing provisions within Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act. The defendant argued that the Act permitted probation as an alternative to imprisonment, contending that the statutory language was not unequivocal in mandating imprisonment. The court had to ascertain whether the language of the Act was clear enough to exclude probation as a possible sentencing option.

In examining the statutory language, the court found that Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act unequivocally prescribed a one-year imprisonment term for the offence of possessing a short firearm in a public place. The language used was explicit and did not provide for any alternative sentencing options. The court concluded that the mandatory nature of the sentencing provision left no room for judicial discretion to impose probation instead of imprisonment. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's submission regarding probation was without merit. The court was left with no option but to impose the mandatory sentence as prescribed by the statute.

The final order of the court was that the only permissible sentencing outcome for the defendant’s conviction was one-year imprisonment to be served wholly in a corrective services facility, in accordance with the mandatory sentencing provision of Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act. The court had no discretion to impose probation or any other form of sentencing, given the clear and unequivocal language of the statute.

Orders

Orders of the court

The only sentencing outcome available to this court following the defendant’s conviction for the offence of possessing a short firearm in a public place pursuant to Section 50(1)(d)(iii) of the Weapons Act is 1 year’s imprisonment served wholly in a corrective services facility

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.