R v Bloomfield - [1999] NSWCCA 196

CITATION: R v Bloomfield [1999] NSWCCA 196

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60272/98

HEARING DATE(S): 21 July 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Vili Bloomfield (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; Simpson J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/21/3138

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL: P. Berman (Crown)
In person

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act

CASES CITED:
R v Burnett (1996) 85 A Crim R 76
Hallocoglou (1992) 29 NSWLR 57
Barbaro (unreported, NSWCCA, 24 February 1997)

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60272/98

STUDDERT J
SIMPSON J
Wednesday 21 July 1999

REGINA v VILI BLOOMFIELD
JUDGMENT
1   STUDDERT J: The applicant Vili Bloomfield has appeared in person before this Court seeking leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by her Honour Judge Tupman in the District Court on 12 May 1998. The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty to an offence charged under s 59 of the Crimes Act of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Section 59 provides for a maximum penalty of five years penal servitude for a conviction for such an offence.
2   Her Honour, following conviction, sentenced the applicant to a term of penal servitude of eighteen months, directing that it be served by way of periodic detention.
3   The applicant now seeks leave to appeal and has stated the following grounds to support his application:

“(i) severity of sentence;

(ii) the assault was not reported until several months after it allegedly occurred;

(iii) no medical reports to justify allegations;
(iv) the eighteen month periodic detention was unjust due to lack of evidence”

4 Although the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence charged, there was a dispute as to exactly what occurred. The sentencing proceedings followed upon a trial of the accused on an indictment containing nine counts. The jury did not agree on the first eight counts of the indictment. However the victim had given evidence concerning the subject matter of the offence charged under s 59 and so too had her mother and her sister.
5   Her Honour was the trial judge and the material adduced during the trial concerning the assault occasioning actual bodily harm was treated as being before her Honour for purposes of sentencing.
6   The version of events relied upon by the Crown and established through the victim, her mother and the victim’s sister, was disputed by the applicant.
7   In her remarks on sentence her Honour carefully reviewed the Crown case and the applicant’s version of events. Her Honour expressed herself as accepting beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of the three Crown witnesses I have identified. Her Honour went on to record these findings on her remarks on sentence:

“I accept the requisite standard that the facts are that when he came in, he had an argument with Vicki Bloomfield about pills that were missing from her mother’s bedroom, that he was not prepared to accept her denial that…

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 Bloomfield

Details

AGLC: R v Bloomfield [1999] NSWCCA 196
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 196
Decision Date: 21 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Vili Bloomfield, the applicant, Vili Bloomfield, appeared before the Court of Criminal Appeal to seek leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Judge Tupman in the District Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence under section 59 of the Crimes Act of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he was sentenced to eighteen months of penal servitude, to be served by way of periodic detention. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the grounds of the severity of the sentence, the delay in reporting the assault, the lack of medical reports, and the absence of evidence justifying the sentence.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process. The Court examined the evidence presented during the trial, which included testimony from the victim, her mother, and her sister, and considered the findings of fact made by Judge Tupman. The Court noted that the findings of fact were not open to review and that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The Court also considered the applicant's arguments regarding the delay in reporting the assault and the lack of medical reports, but found that these factors did not impact the findings of fact made by the sentencing judge.

The Court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. The Court noted that the sentence had a significant element of leniency built into it, as it was to be served by way of periodic detention. The Court concluded that there was no error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge and that the sentence was altogether appropriate. Therefore, the Court refused leave to appeal.

The final order of the Court was that leave to appeal was refused.

Orders