R v Bradley - [2007] VSC 418

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No 1569 of 2006

THE QUEEN

CRAIG STUART BRADLEY

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 October 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bradley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 418

---

Reckless conduct endangering life -shots fired at police on duty - on parole for murder- prohibited person with firearm – 9 years and 3 months – new overall minimum of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Beale	Angela Cannon Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Lewis	Leanne Warren and Associates

HER HONOUR:

Craig Bradley, you were charged with two counts of attempted murder and the alternative offences of reckless conduct endangering life; one count of theft, one count of intentionally causing injury and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The jury acquitted you of the charges of attempted murder and convicted you in respect of the alternative.

The circumstances of the offending are, that in late November 2005 you stole a Hyundai motor vehicle and on 12 February 2006, at about 10 in the evening, you crashed that vehicle into the front of a house in Sydenham. A neighbour came out and went over to the car. You were out of the car, or just getting out of the car, which was still running. It was suggested by that neighbour, that you stay in that location, having been involved in the crash.

It was around that stage, that you indicated, by opening your jacket and looking down, that you had a handgun in your possession. It is clear, by the manner in which you did this, you intended to intimidate the person to whom you were speaking, so that you could proceed out of the area. Those neighbours, not surprisingly, reported to the police, that not only had there been an accident but, the person involved was in possession of a firearm. Your description was given and broadcast over the police radio, including the fact that you were wearing a black leather jacket. You left the scene of the crash and headed towards the Melton Highway.

As you were walking along that road a police car came in the other direction. The officers saw you and determined, that you matched the description of the armed man, which had been given over the police radio. Ross McCann was the driver of the police vehicle and Glenn Saw the passenger. McCann pulled over and was on the police radio, saying that they had located the suspect. Mr Saw got out of the police car, which was almost level with where you were walking, and said to you as he got out: "Keep your hands where I can see them, I want to talk to you."

You continued walking, but in response, you reached into your pants and pulled out a gun and…

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 Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley [2007] VSC 418
Case: [2007] VSC 418
Decision Date: 10 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bradley, faced the Court of Appeal in relation to a matter involving serious criminal conduct. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence for the appellant’s crime, specifically whether the minimum term imposed was excessive. Bradley, who was on parole for a previous murder conviction, had fired shots at police officers while armed with a firearm, despite being a prohibited person. The trial judge had sentenced Bradley to a total of nine years and three months, with a non-parole period of six years and nine months. The appeal centred on the severity of the minimum term of imprisonment, which the Crown argued should be reduced to seven years.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate application of sentencing principles, particularly the necessity to balance the severity of the offence with the offender's history and circumstances. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principle of totality and whether the minimum term of imprisonment was excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the effect of the parole period on the overall sentence and that the minimum term should be reduced. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the assessment of the appropriate minimum term. The court held that the trial judge had failed to take into account the effect of the parole period on the overall sentence, resulting in an excessive minimum term. The appeal was allowed, and the minimum term was reduced to seven years. The Court of Appeal directed that the appellant be re-sentenced with the corrected minimum term, maintaining the non-parole period as originally determined by the trial judge. This decision underscores the importance of accurately applying sentencing principles, particularly in cases involving offenders with significant criminal histories.

Orders