Police v Lindblom - [2009] SASC 168

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Appeals to a Single Judge: Criminal)
POLICE v LINDBLOM
[2009] SASC 168
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
12 June 2009
MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - SENTENCING
Appeal against sentence - whether sentence imposed by Magistrate manifestly inadequate - whether Magistrate erred in excusing defendant's breaches of two good behaviour bonds, not revoking suspended sentences of imprisonment.
Held: appeal dismissed - defendant has good prospects of rehabilitation - imprisonment counterproductive in the circumstances - Magistrate not in error.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 58(3), referred to.
R v Buckman (1988) 47 SASR 303; R v Walker (1981) 27 SASR 315; R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362, considered.

POLICE v LINDBLOM
[2009] SASC 168
Civil
GRAY J.

This is an appeal by the Police with respect to the penalty imposed by the Magistrate. On 21 May 2009, I ordered that the appeal be dismissed. I now publish my reasons for that order.
On 16 September 2007, Dallas Matthew Lindblom, the defendant and respondent, committed the offences of carrying an offensive weapon, and disorderly behaviour in a public place. On 13 May 2008, he was sentenced to ten days imprisonment with respect to these offences. The sentence was suspended on his entry into a 12-month good behaviour bond. The Magistrate declined to revoke two earlier suspended sentences. It is this sentence that is the subject of the present appeal. Before the Magistrate, and on the hearing of the appeal, the defendant was unrepresented.
The complaint on appeal was that the Magistrate erred in excusing the defendant’s breaches of two earlier good behaviour bonds and not revoking suspended sentences of imprisonment.
To understand the sentence imposed on 13 May 2008, it is necessary to set out the circumstances giving rise to the two earlier good behaviour bonds. As at the date of this sentence, the defendant was subject to two suspended bonds. The first, a three-year bond suspending a sentence of two months imprisonment, was imposed for the offences of offensive language and resisting police, committed on 2 April 2006. The bond was originally entered into on 23 May 2006, but was extended on 4 April 2007 by 12 months with an expiry date of 23 May 2010. The second was a two-year bond suspending a sentence of two months and 28 days’ imprisonment for offences of disorderly behaviour committed on 3 February 2006, property damage committed on 10 June 2006 and disorderly behaviour committed on 31 August 2006, and was imposed on 4 April 2007 with an expiry date of 4 April 2009.
On the hearing of the appeal counsel for the Police submitted that the Magistrate erred by excusing the breaches of the bonds and imposing a sentence that was described as manifestly inadequate.
The Police submitted that the nature of the breaching offences coupled with the defendant’s history and antecedents and the prior excusing of his breach of the first bond,…

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 Lindblom

Details

AGLC: Police v Lindblom [2009] SASC 168
Case: [2009] SASC 168
Decision Date: 12 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v Lindblom, the court addressed an appeal against the sentence imposed by a Magistrate. The defendant, Lindblom, was appealing on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the Magistrate erred in excusing his breaches of two good behaviour bonds and in not revoking two suspended sentences of imprisonment. The case required the court to consider the appropriateness of the sentence and the Magistrate's discretion in dealing with the defendant's breaches and suspended sentences.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly inadequate and whether the Magistrate erred in not revoking the good behaviour bonds and the suspended sentences. The appeal hinged on the assessment of the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation and the suitability of a custodial sentence.

The court found that the defendant had good prospects of rehabilitation and that imprisonment would be counterproductive in these circumstances. The court held that the Magistrate was not in error in excusing the breaches of the good behaviour bonds and in not revoking the suspended sentences. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's decision. The court underscored the importance of rehabilitation over punitive measures where appropriate.

Orders