Legal Research
Cases
R v Bowler

R v Bowler

Case [2015] ACTSC 298 25 September 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v Dylan Bowler
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 298
Hearing Date(s):	18 August 2015
DecisionDate:	25 September 2015
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [46].
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – property offences – aggravated burglary – burglary – damage property – theft – drive motor vehicle without consent – offender in company – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 318(1), 318(2), 308, 311, 312, 403, 404 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 34(e), 7(a), 7(2)
Cases Cited:	Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Holliday v R [2013] ACTCA 31 Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Harris (2007) [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Henry (1996) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dylan Bowler (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 170 of 2015

ROBINSON AJ:

Background

The offender, Dylan Bowler, was charged with 27 offences committed in the period 30 December 2014 to 31 March 2015. The bulk of these offences, 24 in total, were committed over the course of some four days from 27 March to 31 March 2015. Counsel for the Crown aptly described the offender as having been on a "crime spree" and the offender's own counsel did not cavil with the use of that term.

The offender was arrested on 2 April 2015 and bail was refused. He has been on remand at Alexander Maconochie Centre since that date. Any sentence I impose will commence from this date.

On 30 June 2015 he pleaded guilty to all 27 charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

The Offences

It is convenient and administratively efficient to list the 27 offences in chronological order, before providing a summary of each.

Charge	Date	Offence	Section Criminal Code	Max Penalty
1	15/4185	31/12/14	Dishonestly ride in vehicle	s318 (2)	5 years
2	15/3493	8/3/15	Damage property – motor vehicle	s40	10 years
3	15/3494	8/3/15	Attempt to take motor vehicle	s318(1)	5 years
4	15/4024	27/3/15	Burglary at Ainslie Newsagency	s311	14 years
5	15/4017	27/3/15	Theft from Ainslie Newsagency	s308	10 years
6	15/4018	27/3/15	Property damage at Ainslie Newsagency	s403	10 years
7	15/4023	27/3/15	Burglary at Best Friend’s Pet Store	s311	14 years
8	15/3975	27/3/15	Theft from Best Friend’s Pet Store	s308	10 years
9	15/3976	27/3/15	Property damage at Best Friend’s Pet Store	s403	10 years
10	15/3977	27/3/15	Burglary at Timbo’s Takeaway

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 Bowler

Details

AGLC: R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298
Case: [2015] ACTSC 298
Decision Date: 25 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bowler, the accused was before the court on various charges stemming from a series of property offences. The events in question involved the accused, in the company of others, entering a property without permission, causing damage, and stealing property. Additionally, the accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The matter was heard in the [specific court], where the accused pleaded guilty to all charges.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the offences committed. These included determining the severity of the offences, the circumstances surrounding them, and the appropriate penalties to be imposed in accordance with the principles of sentencing. The court had to consider the nature of the offences, the degree of planning and execution, and the harm caused to the victims.

The court delivered its judgment, taking into account the principles of criminal sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found the offences to be serious due to the aggravated nature of the burglary, the extent of property damage, and the theft involved. Furthermore, the court emphasised the need to deter such behaviour and to provide just punishment. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence and submissions, the court sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment, along with other penalties such as fines and community service.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence for the accused, as well as fines and other conditions to be served upon release. The specifics of the sentence and conditions were detailed in the judgment, providing clear directives for the accused's compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [46].

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298

Most Recent Citation

R v Hinder [2020] ACTSC 55

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151, particularly at [48]. In relation to sentencing for theft and damage offences, I am referred to two authorities: R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, particularly at [20]; and R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64, particularly at [43]. I have had regard to what has been cited by the Crown as relevant princi…
R v KN [2020] ACTSC 218
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…In R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, the offender was charged with 27 offences, including among them four counts of burglary, two counts of aggravated burglary, five counts of damaging property, five counts of joint commission property damage, and one count of arson. The offender was 18 years of age at the time of the o…
R v Hinder [2020] ACTSC 55
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…In R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, the offences involved theft of items from jewellery stores. They were associated with a number of other offences. One of the thefts involved removal of $8,465 worth of jewellery – a similar amount to that involved in this theft. However; that took place by the smashing of a glass dis…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In this Court the concept of a crushing sentence has also been described as one of little utility, and best avoided ( Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21 at [53]). However described, the concept at its heart requires a sentencing court to assess the totality of the criminality and determine whether the aggregate se…
Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…mage caused to the various premises intensifies the objective seriousness of the behavior and is therefore relevant on sentencing ( Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361 at [23]). In total the offender caused damage to premises and motor vehicles of more than $100,000 and stole goods to the value of approximately $38,…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…illicit substances. This has present relevance to the prospects of rehabilitation: R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67, 71, quoted in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [47].…
Holliday v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 31
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…offender a crushing sentence is one that is so long that the offender cannot conceive of enjoying a useful life after its expiration Holliday v R [2013] ACTCA 31 at [61]. It has also been described as one which might destroy such prospects as there may be of rehabilitation and reform ( R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim…
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…the case. The relevance of youth at sentence is uncontroversial and the principles relating to that factor were summarized by McClellan CJ in KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [22]-[26]. I adopt those principles, as relevant. At the same time I have accommodated the other somewhat conflicting purposes comfortably.…
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…18] quoting from R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 at [112]. It may also lead to error ( Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [49] and R v Harris (2007) [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [38]-[42].…
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…s offences, and may create a perception of rendering him unaccountable for his actions, or obtaining a discount for multiple offending: R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [18] quoting from R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 at [112]. It may also lead to error ( Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [49] and R v Harris (2…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 8

…The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Holliday v R [2013] ACTCA 31 Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Engert (199…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…finding does not admit of much leniency for the offender. Whilst I accept it as an explanation for the offending behaviour, consistent with R v Henry (1996) 46 NSWLR 346 I do not consider it a factor on sentencing. It is a matter of choice to engage in crime, and not all people who have an addiction do so. Henry at [2…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…e offending: R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [18] quoting from R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 at [112]. It may also lead to error ( Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [49] and R v Harris (2007) [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [38]-[42].…
Postiglione v the Queen [1997] HCA 26
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…ces there must, as a concomitant, be considerable concurrency to avoid what might be described as a “crushing sentence” ( Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 303-4). This Court has recognized that in the case of a young offender a crushing sentence is one that is so long that the offender cannot conceive of…
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…d the aggregate sentence to see whether it is just and appropriate, as s 7(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, 2005 (ACT) requires. (See also Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59, 63 on the same issue).…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 34(e), 7(2), 7(a)
4 mentions (from Para 1)