R v Bradley - [2015] VSC 768

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT SHEPPARTON

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0188

THE QUEEN

STEVEN BRADLEY

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN JA
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton
DATE OF HEARING:	18 December 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bradley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 768

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – 27 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 21 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Fitzgerald with Mr S Payne	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Steven Bradley, you have been convicted by a jury of 12 of the murder of Michelle Buckingham at Shepparton on or about 21 October 1983. I am satisfied that the evidence of your brother-in-law, Norman Gribble, is substantially accurate and that you confessed to the murder of Michelle when you went to visit him on the morning after the killing in a state of emotional distress and consciousness of guilt.

In that confession, you first stated the terrible fact that you had killed someone. This was a true statement and the someone was Michelle Buckingham.

You also told Norman Gribble that you had gone to Strayleaves Caravan Park in your car with your friends Rodney Butler and Trevor Corrigan in order to pick up your then girlfriend, Jodie Ormiston, but that in fact you picked up Michelle Buckingham.

I am also satisfied that this is true and that you did so intending to have sex with Michelle. She refused and you, together with your two companions, stabbed her to death in the car park at the back of the Pine Lodge Hotel.

You then drove Michelle Buckingham’s body out past Kialla in the boot of the car and dumped it beside a little-used rural road. It was discovered in a substantially decomposed condition some two weeks later.

After dumping the body, you drove your companions back to Shepparton and then sat by the river alone in your car in a state of emotional turmoil contemplating what you had done, before going to visit your brother-in-law, Norman Gribble, the next morning at the caravan park in which he lived at that time with your sister.

After seeing that you were in a highly distressed condition and were bleeding from a cut in your hand, Norman Gribble first bound up your hand and then drove you to Waranga Basin, stopping to buy some cans of beer in Tatura on the way. After arrival at Waranga Basin, you calmed down sufficiently to tell him what had happened in some considerable detail while you each drank two cans of beer.

Because of the very substantial elapse of time in question (some 32 years), it is appropriate to record for the public why, in my view, it was plainly open to the jury to be satisfied, as they must have been, that Norman Gribble’s evidence of your admission as to responsibility…

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 [2015] VSC 768
Case: [2015] VSC 768
Decision Date: 22 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Bradley was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Bradley, was convicted of the murder of his former partner. The case revolved around the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant, which was 27 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years. The appellant contested the length of his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and disproportionate given the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering the mitigating factors in sentencing. The court had to determine if the sentence was so disproportionate that it could be considered a legal error. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the trial judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching the sentence.

The court examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and noted that while the sentence was severe, it was not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors but ultimately upheld the sentence, considering the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crime committed. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders