R v Blundell - [2019] ACTSC 42

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Blundell

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 42

Hearing Date:

24 January 2019

Decision Date:

15 February 2019

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [49]–[86]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – obtaining property by deception – attempting to obtain property by deception – pleas of guilty – subject to Good Behaviour Orders at the time of the commission of offences – re‑sentence – extensive criminal history – need to protect the community – general deterrence – rehabilitation not irrelevant

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code2002 (ACT) ss 44, 308, 311, 326

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Paul Anthony Blundell (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

A Williamson (Crown)

J Campbell (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 20 of 2018; SCC 21 of 2018; SCC 22 of 2018; SCC 36 of 2015; SCC 37 of 2015

BURNS J

1. Paul Blundell, you appear before me today for sentence, having pleaded guilty to the following offences in this Court: 11 counts of burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), each punishable by 14 years' imprisonment, 1,400 penalty units, or both; 12 counts of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), each punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both; two counts of obtaining property by deception, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), each punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both; and one count of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to ss 44 and 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both.
2. In addition, following pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court on 15 February 2018, you were committed for sentence to this Court on six counts of obtaining property by deception, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), each punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both.
3.          Finally, you ask that I take in to account when sentencing you for one of the offences of burglary, which I shall identify later in these reasons, three offences of burglary and one offence of theft contained on a List of Additional Offences dated 7 November 2018.
4.          On 6 November 2018, the Crown filed an indictment containing 38 counts. After a process of negotiation, a number of these charges did not proceed. Where appropriate, I will refer to the charges by their count number on the indictment. With regard to the charges which were committed for sentence from the Magistrates Court, I will refer to the charges by the Magistrates Court charge number. I will also refer to the charges of burglary on the List of Additional Offences by reference to their respective Magistrates Court charge number or indeed their count on the indictment where that is appropriate.
5.          The charge of theft contained on…

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 Blundell

Details

AGLC: R v Blundell [2019] ACTSC 42
Case: [2019] ACTSC 42
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Blundell, the appellant stood before the Court of Appeal, challenging his sentence for multiple offences including burglary, theft, obtaining property by deception, and attempting to obtain property by deception. The appellant, who had previously been subject to Good Behaviour Orders at the time of the commission of these offences, sought a re-sentencing on the basis that his original sentence was excessive. The appellant had a significant criminal history, which was a key factor in the appeal.

The central legal issues that the Court had to address were whether the original sentence was appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the objectives of sentencing. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the sentence adequately reflected the need to protect the community and to provide general deterrence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation. The appellant argued that the original sentence was disproportionate and did not sufficiently weigh his capacity for rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal examined the objectives of sentencing, which include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The Court recognised the appellant's extensive criminal history and his continued offending even while under Good Behaviour Orders. The Court concluded that the original sentence was necessary to achieve the overarching objectives of sentencing, particularly given the need to protect the community and to provide general deterrence. The Court also acknowledged that while rehabilitation was not irrelevant, in this case, the need for deterrence and community protection outweighed the potential for the appellant's rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The Court held that the original sentence was appropriate and served the necessary objectives of sentencing. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the appellant's sentence remained unchanged.

Orders