R v Bramley - [2015] ACTSC 51

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bramley
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 51
Hearing Dates:	17 December 2013, 20 February and 6 November 2014 and 25 February 2015
DecisionDate:	25 February 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Term of imprisonment from 25 February 2015 until 6 September 2015, suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for the period of the suspended sentence
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – rehabilitation – mental health – drug abuse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12(2), 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44(1), 310
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke John Bramley (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Reardon (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 188 of 2013

Murrell CJ:

The Offence

The offender adheres to a plea of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court at an early opportunity, although not at the earliest opportunity, to the offence that on 5 September 2013, he attempted a robbery while armed with a knife, that being a circumstance of aggravation.

The offence is contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (by virtue of s 44(1)). The maximum available penalty for such an offence is 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $375, 000.

The offence places the offender in breach of a good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court on 5 June 2013 in relation to the contravention of a protection order.

Facts

At about 7.25pm on 5 September 2013, the offender went to the North Lyneham shopping complex and attended the Mini Mart shop, which was, at that time, open for business. There was only one staff member in the store. When the offender entered, he was wearing sunglasses and a hooded jumper with the hood over his head. He went to a fridge where he handled a can of energy drink. He then walked to the front counter. He produced a 15 centimetre knife from his pocket, showed the knife to the staff member on duty and demanded all the money from the cash register. The staff member pretended that he did not understand. The offender became very irate and aggressive. The staff member reached under the counter and pressed the silent hold up alarm. The offender realised what was occurring and yelled abuse at the staff member. The offender then left the shop.

Police attended and viewed CCTV footage. They seized the can of energy drink that had been handled by the offender. They later matched the offender's fingerprints to fingerprints found on the can. The following day, they spoke to the offender, who agreed to attend the city police station on the next day.

However, on that day, 7 September 2013, the offender did not attend the police station. Instead, he flew to the Gold Coast. The offender’s mother had purchased the ticket. The offender wanted to…

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 Bramley

Details

AGLC: R v Bramley [2015] ACTSC 51
Case: [2015] ACTSC 51
Decision Date: 25 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bramley, the Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the case of an individual convicted of various offences, including drug possession and supply. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing approach, particularly considering the offender's history of mental health issues and drug abuse. The court had to weigh the need for punishment against the potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the principles of sentencing and the role of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. The court needed to assess the gravity of the offences, the offender's history, and the potential impact of a custodial sentence on their rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider the public interest and the need to deter similar criminal behaviour.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the offender's struggles with mental health and drug addiction, which had contributed to their criminal conduct. It was acknowledged that a custodial sentence might not be the most effective means of rehabilitation in this instance. Instead, the court opted for a suspended sentence, imposing a term of imprisonment that would be activated if the offender violated the conditions of a good behaviour order. This approach aimed to provide the offender with an opportunity to engage in rehabilitation programs while also serving a deterrent function. The court's decision reflected a balanced consideration of both punitive and rehabilitative objectives.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment from 25 February 2015 until 6 September 2015, suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for the period of the suspended sentence

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.