R v Bloxsome - [2019] ACTSC 217

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bloxsome
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 217
Hearing Date:	15 July 2019
DecisionDate:	15 August 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [54]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – intentional wounding – forcible confinement – sexual intercourse without consent – aggravated robbery – take a motor vehicle – aggravated burglary – damaging property – sentencing of co‑accused – offender played lesser role in offences – sexual assault occurred during forcible confinement – extensive criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 21(1), 34, 54(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 312, 318(1), 403(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Rodney Bloxsome (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) P Skehan (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 184 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

After a jury trial, the offender, Rodney Bloxsome was found guilty of the following offences:

(a)intentional wounding contrary to s 21(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2018/5383);
(b)forcible confinement contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act (XO2018/31433);
(c)sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act (XO2019/31472);
(d)sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act (XO2019/31473);
(e)aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (CC2018/3371).

Following the verdict of the jury, convictions were entered in relation to each of these charges.

At the commencement of the trial he had pleaded guilty to a number of other charges:

(a)SCCAN23/2019: taking a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code;
(b)XO2018/31436: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code; and
(c)XO2018/31437: damaging property contrary to s 403 (1) of the Criminal Code.

At the conclusion of the trial the jury found him not guilty on a number of other charges.

The maximum penalty for the offences are as follows:

(a)s 21(1) of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for five years;
(b)s 34 of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for 10 years;
(c)s 54(1) of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for 12 years;
(d)s 310 of the Criminal Code: 2500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both;
(e)s 312 of the Criminal Code: 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both;
(f)s 318(1) of the Criminal Code: 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both; and
(g)s 403(1) of the Criminal Code: 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

Facts

The offending occurred between 26 February 2018 and 28 February 2018. It involved a methamphetamine‑fuelled crime spree undertaken by Mr Bloxsome and Damien Featherstone and a number of other persons.

Mr Featherstone and his wife had come to Canberra on 1 February 2018. Mr Bloxsome had arranged accommodation for them. Mr Bloxsome is the uncle of Mr Featherstone’s wife. Mr Featherstone was a methamphetamine dealer and user.

As…

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 Bloxsome

Details

AGLC: R v Bloxsome [2019] ACTSC 217
Case: [2019] ACTSC 217
Decision Date: 15 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bloxsome, the High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the sentences imposed on two co-accused for their involvement in a series of serious criminal offences. The accused were convicted for their roles in an incident that involved the intentional wounding of a victim, forcible confinement, sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, damaging property, and other related charges. The court was required to consider the extent of each offender's participation in these crimes, the nature of the offences, and the offenders' criminal histories in determining appropriate sentences.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case, particularly given the varying degrees of involvement of the co-accused. The court had to evaluate whether the sentence imposed on the applicant, who played a lesser role in the offences, was manifestly excessive and whether it was necessary to intervene to ensure the sentence was just and appropriate. Additionally, the court examined the impact of the extensive criminal history of both offenders on the sentencing process, including the principle of totality, which aims to prevent the cumulative effect of multiple sentences from being disproportionately severe.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the roles played by each offender, the severity of the crimes committed, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court concluded that while the applicant's role was indeed lesser, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the offences and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court noted that the applicant's criminal history, while extensive, did not necessarily warrant a lighter sentence but rather called for a balanced approach that accounted for both the gravity of the crimes and the individual circumstances of the offender. The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the appeal, as the sentence was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The decision highlights the importance of considering the totality of an offender's criminal history and the varying degrees of participation in a crime when determining sentences, while also balancing the need for general and specific deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [54]

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.