R v. Bedford - [2007] QCA 417

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bedford [2007] QCA 417

PARTIES:

R
v
BEDFORD, Frank George
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 128 of 2007
DC No 1232 of 2007
DC No 3012 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against convictions dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant acquitted of common assault and sexual assault – whether open to jury to be satisfied on all of the evidence of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to two years imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrently with a parole release date fixed after serving 10 and a half months – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Fitzgerald [2004] QCA 241; CA 179 of 2004, 23 July 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence refused for the reasons given by Keane JA.

KEANE JA: On 4 May 2007 the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of burglary and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. He was acquitted of one count of common assault and one count of sexual assault.

On 11 May 2007 the appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrently with a parole release date fixed at

22 March 2008. The learned sentencing judge declared 51 days of pre-sentence custody as time already served.

The appellant seeks to appeal against the convictions on the ground that they are "unsafe and unsatisfactory and contrary to law".

The appellant also seeks to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances".

The case at trial

The complainant was Ms Kerry Waldie. The appellant and Ms Waldie had been in a domestic relationship which ended in 2002. They continued to see each other, and in 2005 a domestic violence order was made against the appellant at Ms Waldie's instigation. Even after this order had been made,…

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. Bedford

Details

AGLC: R v Bedford [2007] QCA 417
Case: [2007] QCA 417
Decision Date: 23 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v. Bedford, the appellant was convicted of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm but acquitted of common assault and sexual assault. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence. The Court of Appeal for the Criminal Division was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm.

The court considered the evidence and the jury's verdict, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The jury was properly directed, and the verdict was open to them on the evidence. The court held that the jury was entitled to infer the appellant's guilt from the circumstances presented, and that it was not open to the court to substitute its own view for that of the jury. The appeal against the convictions was dismissed as the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the offences committed. The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently, with a parole release date set after serving 10 and a half months. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against convictions dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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:	R v Bedford [2007] QCA 417
PARTIES:	R v BEDFORD, Frank George (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 128 of 2007 DC No 1232 of 2007 DC No 3012 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 November 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against convictions dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant acquitted of common assault and sexual assault – whether open to jury to be satisfied on all of the evidence of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to two years imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrently with a parole release date fixed after serving 10 and a half months – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Fitzgerald [2004] QCA 241; CA 179 of 2004, 23 July 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent