R v Bravo - [2006] QCA 214

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bravo [2006] QCA 214

PARTIES:

R
v
BRAVO, Troy Matthew
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 333 of 2005
DC No 1071 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Fryberg and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where sentence of two years suspended after eight months imposed on applicant for four offences including robbery with personal violence – where applicant breached suspended sentence almost immediately upon release into community – where applicant committed a further twenty five drug and property offences – where applicant sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for these offences – where applicant brought back before sentencing judge as a result of the breaches - whether balance of the suspended sentence should be made cumulative on or concurrent with two years’ imprisonment imposed for later drug and property offences

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(d), s 9(1)(e), s 147, s 147(2), s 147(3), s 156

Gordon v Whybrow [1998] QCA 52; CA No 10 of 1998, 24 March 1998, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilmore O’Sullivan Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

:JERRARD JA In this application I have read the reasons for judgment of Douglas J and respectfully agree with those, and the order proposed by His Honour. The number of Mr Bravo’s offences and appearances in different courts makes it difficult at first to grasp the effect of the sentence imposed on 4 November 2005, but when understood it can be seen that it is not manifestly excessive.

Mr Bravo had pleaded guilty in the Brisbane District Court on 16 May 2003 to a number of charges, which had included robbery with personal violence. He had spent 176 days in pre-sentence custody from 30 November 2002 until 16 May 2003, which could not be declared under s 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), because it related to a breach of probation which was yet to be dealt with in the Magistrates Court. As explained by Douglas J, the learned District Court judge imposing sentence on 16 May 2003 ultimately took that pre-sentence custody into consideration by imposing sentences of two years imprisonment, to be suspended after eight months.

Mr Bravo re-offended very soon after his release from custody, committing offences between 23 March 2004 and 9 August 2004. Those included, on my count, seven offences of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, five offences of stealing, five offences of fraud, one…

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 Bravo

Details

AGLC: R v Bravo [2006] QCA 214
Case: [2006] QCA 214
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bravo, the appellant was convicted of four offences, including robbery with personal violence, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving eight months. Upon his release, the appellant breached the conditions of his suspended sentence by committing a further twenty-five drug and property offences. He was subsequently sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for these additional offences. The appellant applied to the court for the balance of the original suspended sentence to be made concurrent with the sentence imposed for the later offences, rather than cumulative.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed for the additional offences should run concurrently with or cumulatively to the balance of the suspended sentence for the original offences. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing and the objectives of punishment, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court held that the balance of the suspended sentence should run concurrently with the two years’ imprisonment imposed for the additional offences. The court reasoned that the original sentence was intended to provide the appellant with an opportunity to reintegrate into society and reform his behaviour. The subsequent breaches demonstrated a failure to take advantage of this opportunity. However, the court found that the appellant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his drug addiction. The court considered that imposing a cumulative sentence would not serve the objectives of sentencing and would result in an excessive punishment for the appellant.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the balance of the suspended sentence should run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the additional offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Bravo [2006] QCA 214
PARTIES:	R v BRAVO, Troy Matthew (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 333 of 2005 DC No 1071 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, Fryberg and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where sentence of two years suspended after eight months imposed on applicant for four offences including robbery with personal violence – where applicant breached suspended sentence almost immediately upon release into community – where applicant committed a further twenty five drug and property offences – where applicant sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for these offences – where applicant brought back before sentencing judge as a result of the breaches - whether balance of the suspended sentence should be made cumulative on or concurrent with two years’ imprisonment imposed for later drug and property offences Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(d), s 9(1)(e), s 147, s 147(2), s 147(3), s 156 Gordon v Whybrow [1998] QCA 52; CA No 10 of 1998, 24 March 1998, considered
COUNSEL:	P E Smith for the applicant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilmore O’Sullivan Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent