R v Blundell - [2017] ACTSC 128

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Blundell
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 128
Hearing Date:	17 May 2017
DecisionDate:	17 May 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	See [55]–[56]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drug offences – Supply drug of dependence – Possess prohibited substance – Possess offensive weapon – Damage to property – Domestic violence offences – Offender with extensive criminal history – Consideration of rehabilitation prospects when sentencing
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 381(1), 382(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403(1) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) ss 164(2)(a), 171(1)(b) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Peter Blundell (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 171 of 2015; SCC 172 of 2015; SCC 267 of 2016; SCC 66 of 2017; SCC 67 of 2017

MURRELL CJ:

The offender is before the Court for sentence and resentence in relation to three groups of matters:

(a)Three offences committed on 15 October 2016
(i)sell or supply drug of dependence, namely MDMA contrary to s 164(2)(a) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT);
(ii)possess prohibited substance, namely methylamphetamine contrary to s 171(1)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT); and
(iii)possess knife in a public place without reasonable excuse contrary to s 382(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

(b)Two offences committed on 30 October 2016
(i)possess offensive weapon with intent to commit an offence involving actual or threatened violence contrary to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act; and
(ii)intentional damage to property contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).

(c)Two breach offences committed on 17 March 2015
(i)possess offensive weapon with intent to commit an offence involving actual or threatened violence contrary to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act; and
(ii)intentional damage to property contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offences of 15 and 30 October 2016 constituted breaches of good behaviour orders associated with partially suspended sentences that I imposed on 24 May 2016 for the offences committed on 17 March 2015. The breaches of the good behaviour orders are admitted.

The offence of possessing an offensive weapon carries a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.

The offence of intentionally damaging property carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150 000 or both.

The offence of selling or supplying a drug of dependence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $75 000 or both.

The offence of possessing a prohibited substance carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of $7 500 or both.

The offence of possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse carries a maximum penalty of…

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 [2017] ACTSC 128
Case: [2017] ACTSC 128
Decision Date: 17 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Blundell, was convicted of various drug and weapon-related offences, as well as domestic violence charges. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary focus of the appeal was the severity of the sentence imposed, which included a lengthy custodial term and fines. Blundell argued that the trial judge failed to adequately consider his prospects for rehabilitation, which should have mitigated the severity of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in the sentencing process by not sufficiently weighing Blundell's potential for rehabilitation and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the interplay between the principles of deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation in sentencing, particularly in light of Blundell's extensive criminal history and the specific circumstances of the offences.

The court acknowledged that the trial judge did consider the appellant's extensive criminal history and his prospects for rehabilitation. However, the court found that the judge did not adequately address the specific evidence and arguments presented regarding Blundell's potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, but the court noted the importance of rehabilitation considerations in future sentencing decisions.

The final orders confirmed the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court upheld the custodial term and fines but noted the importance of considering rehabilitation prospects in similar future cases. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [55]–[56]

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.