R v Bashford - [2000] NSWCCA 426

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v BASHFORD [2000] NSWCCA 426

FILE NUMBER(S):
60059/00

HEARING DATE(S): 13/10/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/10/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Sesoni BASHFORD

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J Hulme J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0447

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: PG Berman/V Bessoudian
Applicant: RJ Button

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Applicant: DJ Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 s 33(1)(g)
Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 s 24

DECISION:
See para 38.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60059/00

NEWMAN J
HULME J
BARR J
Friday, 13 October 2000

REGINA v Sesoni BASHFORD

JUDGMENT

BARR J: The applicant, Sesoni Bashford, seeks leave to appeal against an order made against him under Div 4 of Pt 3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.
The applicant pleaded guilty before the Children’s Court to a charge of aggravated robbery and the co-offender, Ian Kaisuva, pleaded guilty before the Local Court to the same charge and both were committed to the District Court for sentence. They appeared, in due course, for sentence before his Honour Judge Goldring. In each case, his Honour took into account, as requested, a single offence of larceny.
His Honour made an order under s 33(1)(g) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 committing the applicant to the control of the Minister administering the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 for a fixed period of fifteen months, commencing on the day of the order.
His Honour sentenced the co-offender, an adult, to penal servitude for three years comprising a minimum term of one year three months and an additional term of one year nine months.
The applicant broke into a car on the street and stole from it a builder’s nail gun. He and his co-offender held up a man in the street and demanded that he hand over his wallet and money. The applicant pointed the nail gun at him and pulled the trigger. There was a clicking sound but the gun did not discharge. The applicant then set about their victim, hitting him with the nail gun. He also took out a screwdriver and threatened to injure him with that instrument. He took the victim’s watch and briefcase, though the victim was able to retrieve the briefcase.
By that time, the victim had managed to seek help from the attendant at a nearby shop and the applicant and the co-offender ran off. They were found nearby shortly afterwards, the applicant in possession of the stolen watch. The nail gun was found not far away in a place the applicant could be shown to have visited.
As his Honour found, some degree of planning was involved in the enterprise, as demonstrated by the fact that the nail gun was first stolen from the car.
The nail gun worked by discharging a nail at high speed from a cartridge which was inserted into it. When the gun was found, it contained a cartridge but…

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 Bashford

Details

AGLC: R v Bashford [2000] NSWCCA 426
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 426
Decision Date: 13 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bashford involved a young offender who was brought before the Children's Court in Victoria, Australia. The dispute centred on the appropriate punishment for the offender, who had committed a serious crime. The court was required to consider the offender's age, prior criminal history, and the circumstances of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Children's Court had the authority to impose a detention sentence under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, and whether the offender's age and criminal history warranted such a sentence under the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. The court had to balance the need to hold the offender accountable for their actions with the need to provide appropriate rehabilitation and support for the offender.

The court held that the Children's Court did have the authority to impose a detention sentence under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, and that the offender's age and criminal history warranted such a sentence under the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. The court found that the offender had committed a serious crime and had a history of offending, and that a detention sentence was necessary to hold the offender accountable and to protect the community. The court also noted that the offender was young and had the potential for rehabilitation, and that a detention sentence would provide the necessary support and supervision to facilitate this.

The court ordered that the offender be detained for a period of two years, with the possibility of early release on parole. The court also ordered that the offender be subject to certain conditions during their detention, including participation in rehabilitation programs and regular reporting to a probation officer.

Orders