R v Anthony - [2020] QCA 79

[2020] QCA 79

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
MORRISON JA
McMURDO JA

CA No 49 of 2020
DC No 161 of 2019

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY, Bradley Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 17 APRIL 2020

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of arson. Judge Loury QC sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment for two years, which was to be suspended after he had served eight months. The suspension was to operate for the whole two year period. He appeals against that sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

On 13 May 2018, the day the applicant committed the offence, he was 21 years old. He had no criminal history. Before then, he had been employed on a full-time basis, and continuously, for four years as a truck driver in a delivery business. Mr Stephen Jackson, who owned the business, said that the applicant was a good person and was a valued employee, and was an honest and trustworthy person who had come from a good home and is well supported by his parents.

Mr Jackson said that he was proud to have had the applicant as an employee. The applicant’s older sister, Ms Jemima Goddard, said that the applicant was a great role model and uncle for her six year old son. She reacted with disbelief upon hearing that he had committed the offence.

Mr Bevan Cassidy, who has professional experience working with young offenders, has known the applicant since he was a baby. He said:

“I would firmly state that this is not a true reflection of him or his family values, and no-one is more disappointed or ashamed for bringing his family’s name into disrepute than Bradley himself. He has a gentle yet strong character who can be relied upon to step up to his responsibilities and challenges without hesitation, defiance or fault blaming as he has always done and continues to do so in this situation.”

The applicant committed the offence on 13 May 2018. He was arrested within about a month. The sentence hearing took place in March of this year. In the intervening year and a half the applicant entered into a stable relationship with a young woman with whom he now lives. He began to work for a furniture removal business, the owner of which said, in a statement that was tendered:

“Bradley Anthony is a full-time employee for our company. Bradley shows great work ethics and is a very reliable employee. Bradley is highly spoken about by all our customers and represents our company in a high manner.
We are aware of Bradley’s current court proceedings and regardless of the outcome, Bradley will always hold a position in our company as he is a valuable employee.”

The applicant’s sister, Ms Goddard, said that he had been working full-time over the period between arrest and sentence, and had taken the time to upgrade his truck driving qualifications by upgrading his license so that he could be considered for…

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 R v Anthony

Details

AGLC: R v Anthony [2020] QCA 79
Case: [2020] QCA 79
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the applicant, Bradley Anthony, against his sentence for arson, which was imposed by Judge Loury QC. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charge, which involved setting fire to a car with the intention of recovering the insurance money. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, with the sentence to be suspended after he had served eight months. The appeal was brought on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal raised two issues. The first was whether the learned sentencing judge was correct to apply the parity principle, in the way that she did. The second was whether the sentencing judge was correct to find that the applicant had not shown remorse. The Court concluded that both issues should be resolved in favour of the applicant. In relation to the parity principle, the Court held that it is only relevant when a sentence might be such as to engender a justifiable sense of grievance in the offender being sentenced. It cannot be used as a means to increase the sentence of an offender to achieve parity with a co-offender. In relation to remorse, the Court held that there was evidence of remorse, which was not challenged, and that the sentence that was imposed was based upon an error of fact. The Court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and that the sentence should be set aside. The Court then proceeded to re-sentence the applicant, taking into account that he was a youthful first offender with a previously excellent character, and that he had shown actual rehabilitation since he offended. The Court held that the interests of the community would not be served by putting imprisonment in his way as an obstacle, and that he should be released on parole, with parole to operate for two years.

The final order of the Court was that the sentence of imprisonment, which was suspended after eight months, was set aside and replaced with a sentence of release on parole, with parole to operate for two years.

Orders