R v Bonner - [2000] QCA 37

[2000] QCA 37

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J

CA No 352 of 1999

THE QUEEN

BONNER, Christopher Patrick Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 23/02/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Justice Pincus will deliver his reasons first.

PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant, who is 24 years of age, was convicted in the District Court of a number of summary offences as well as three offences under section 419(4) of the Criminal Code of entering a dwelling house and stealing property therein and three offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

Two of the burglaries attracted a sentence of four years imprisonment; an older offence under section 419(4) was not the subject of a sentence. All the offences except that one were recent.

Before coming to the circumstances of the offences now in question it is desirable to say something of the criminal history. In 1991, 1992, 1993, '94, '95, '96, '97 and '99 the applicant has been convicted of offences of various kinds. Until 1995 he received non-custodial sentences, but in that year he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and later in the same year to two and a half years and then four years imprisonment. Then in 1996 he was ordered to serve six months and another six months cumulative and again 18 months concurrent. In 1997 he was ordered to serve three months concurrent and then two and a half years concurrent. In 1999 he was sentenced to further short terms of imprisonment.

There are in the record numerous offences like the present. There are on my count 53 offences of either breaking and entering or entering with intent. In addition, there are numerous charges of stealing, presumably associated with those just mentioned, and 10 offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

It is desirable now to mention the circumstances of some of the present offences. In one the complainant, a single mother with two children, had her house burgled at night and her car taken from the garage. These offences occurred on 23 January '99. The applicant was arrested and charged on 18 February. Whilst on bail, less than three weeks later, he committed similar offences. On this occasion the complainant was again a woman, who found the applicant in her bedroom. He stole her car keys and using them took her car away. The next offence was committed while still on bail in the same month and again the complainant's car was taken away.

One of the difficulties the primary Judge had in dealing with the matter was that he had to balance the interests of potential victims of this persistent offender against the interests of the applicant in being rehabilitated. As to the former, his Honour must have been concerned that, on past performance, while not imprisoned the applicant was likely to commit further offences of the same kind as he had committed so often in the past.

The Judge mentioned 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 Bonner

Details

AGLC: R v Bonner [2000] QCA 37
Case: [2000] QCA 37
Decision Date: 23/02/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an application for leave to appeal against sentence in the case of R v Bonner. The applicant, Christopher Patrick Bonner, had been convicted of various summary offences as well as three counts of entering a dwelling house and stealing property, and three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The appeal focused on the sentence of four years imprisonment imposed for two of the burglaries, while the older offence under section 419(4) was not the subject of a sentence. The applicant had a lengthy criminal history, with numerous convictions dating back to 1991, including breaking and entering, stealing, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The primary Judge had to balance the interests of potential victims against the applicant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal considered whether the four-year sentence for the principal offences was justifiable, taking into account the applicant's extensive criminal history and the fact that some of the current offences were committed while on bail. The Court ultimately decided that the sentence was justifiable and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the appropriate sentence for the applicant, considering his extensive criminal history and the nature of the current offences. The Court had to determine whether the primary Judge had adequately balanced the interests of potential victims against the applicant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court also had to consider the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's guilty plea and the relatively small value of the property stolen, against the aggravating factors, such as the applicant's history of similar offences and the fact that some of the current offences were committed while on bail.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary Judge had appropriately balanced the interests of potential victims and the applicant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court noted that the applicant had a persistent pattern of criminal activity, undeterred by previous prison sentences. The Court also considered the value of the property stolen, which was relatively small, but noted that this might be due to the limited opportunities presented by the specific circumstances of the offences, rather than any inclination on the applicant's part to limit the theft. The Court held that the four-year sentence for the principal offences was justifiable, taking into account all the other offences, and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding that the primary Judge had appropriately balanced the interests of potential victims and the applicant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court considered the applicant's extensive criminal history and the nature of the current offences, and ultimately decided that the four-year sentence for the principal offences was justifiable. The Court emphasised that the applicant had a persistent pattern of criminal activity, undeterred by previous prison sentences, and that the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's guilty plea and the relatively small value of the property stolen, were outweighed by the aggravating factors, such as the applicant's history of similar offences and the fact that some of the current offences were committed while on bail.

Orders