R v Bradley - [2007] QSC 375

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Bradley [2007] QSC 375
PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRADLEY
(defendant)
FILE NO: Indictment No SC 479 of 2007
DIVISION: Criminal
PROCEEDING: Sentence
COURT: Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON: 3 December 2007
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 December 2007
JUDGE: Fryberg J

ORDER:

1. On count 1 revoke the intensive correction order imposed on the prisoner on 12 December 2005 and commit prisoner to prison for 22 days;
2. On count 2 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for
three months;
3. On each count of 3 and 4 sentence the prisoner to
imprisonment for two months;
4. All imprisonment to be served concurrently;
5. Fix a parole release date in relation to counts 2, 3 and 4
of 3 January 2008

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Breach of intensive
correction order, probation order and community service
order – Re-sentence and committal to prison
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s112, s113, s119,
s127

R v Lam [2007] QSC 137 applied distinguished

COUNSEL: Crown: A Freeman
Respondent: M Robbins
SOLICITORS: Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)
Respondent: Legal Aid Queensland
10
20
30
40
50

2 SENTENCE 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

[2007] QSC 375

FRYBERG J

Indictment No 479 of 2007	10
THE QUEEN
v.
CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRADLEY
BRISBANE	20
..DATE 03/12/2007
SENTENCE
30
40
50

3 SENTENCE 60

HIS HONOUR: Christopher John Bradley, on the 12th of December

2005 you pleaded guilty to one count of supplying ecstasy
tablets, another of supplying methylamphetamine and two counts
of possession of one each of those materials. The amounts
that you possessed were small. You were interviewed by police

and you made admissions to having supplied both of those drugs	10
to other people. Again the amounts supplied were small.
I sentenced you on that occasion on the basis that your
offending was toward the lower end of the scale. At that time
your criminal history was trivial. You had one offence of	20
consuming liquor in a public place whilst under the age of 18 years, committed some 10 years earlier. There were a number of circumstances indicating your willingness to co-operate in the administration of justice.
30
Your counsel submitted that your conduct demonstrated both
remorse and that you had been rehabilitated, but the material
before me did not support either inference. In the
circumstances I thought it appropriate to impose community
based orders. I asked you if you were agreeable to that. The	40
orders which I proposed were an intensive correction order for a period of six months, a probation order for a period of two years and 120 hours of community service to be performed between July 2006 and December 2007.
50

You told me on that occasion that you were agreeable to my making those orders and that you agreed to comply with them. You have not done so. The evidence before me shows…

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] QSC 375
Case: [2007] QSC 375
Decision Date: 3 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bradley was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Bradley, was appealing the sentence imposed on him following his breach of an intensive correction order. This order had been initially imposed on 12 December 2005, and the issue of its breach led to the current proceedings. The court was tasked with deciding whether the sentence imposed for the breach was appropriate, and if the revocation of the intensive correction order and the subsequent prison sentence were justified.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Bradley for breaching the intensive correction order. The court had to consider whether the breach warranted the revocation of the intensive correction order and the imposition of a 22-day prison sentence. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if the sentence was within the bounds of proportionality and fairness, considering the nature and circumstances of the breach.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of breaches of intensive correction orders. It considered the seriousness of the breach, the circumstances leading to the breach, and the potential deterrent effect of the sentence. The court concluded that the breach was significant enough to warrant the revocation of the intensive correction order and the imposition of a custodial sentence. The decision was made on the basis that the sentence needed to reflect the gravity of the breach while also serving as a deterrent against future breaches. Consequently, the court upheld the revocation of the intensive correction order and the 22-day prison sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On count 1 revoke the intensive correction order imposed on the prisoner on 12 December 2005 and commit prisoner to prison for 22 days;

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.

CITATION:	R v Bradley [2007] QSC 375
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRADLEY (defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No SC 479 of 2007
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 December 2007
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDER:	1. On count 1 revoke the intensive correction order imposed on the prisoner on 12 December 2005 and commit prisoner to prison for 22 days;
2. On count 2 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for three months;
3. On each count of 3 and 4 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for two months;
4. All imprisonment to be served concurrently;
5. Fix a parole release date in relation to counts 2, 3 and 4 of 3 January 2008
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Breach of intensive
correction order, probation order and community service
order – Re-sentence and committal to prison
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s112, s113, s119,
s127
R v Lam [2007] QSC 137 applied distinguished

COUNSEL:	Crown: A Freeman Respondent: M Robbins
SOLICITORS:	Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) Respondent: Legal Aid Queensland