R v Bright

99.428

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
DAVIES JA
JONES J

CA No 269 of 1999

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BRIGHT
(Applicant) Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/10/99

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: This application was made by Christopher Michael Bright for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. He was charged on an indictment containing six counts of offences, some of which were related, such as housebreaking, breaking entering and stealing and so on, and he was sentenced in respect of each count to imprisonment for 18 months, wholly suspended, with an operational period of three years, together with 200 hours of community service.

A question has been raised as to whether or not that combined form of sentence is authorised by the Act. We have not heard full submissions on the matter because the applicant when called to support his application for leave did not appear, and, so far as is known, has no intention of appearing.

In all the circumstances and to avoid any question about the validity of the order, which we do not suggest is erroneous, the course I suggest is to order that, in respect of the first three counts in the indictment, the sentence be one of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended with an operational period of three years, and in respect of the last three of those counts, the sentence be 200 hours of community service.

In other words, the intention is that the sentence imposed below be varied by eliminating from the sentences in respect of the first three counts the order for community service, and by eliminating from the sentences imposed in the last three counts the order for imprisonment of 18 months wholly suspended with an operational period of three years.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

JONES J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order is that the application and appeal be allowed to the extent of varying the sentences below in the limited respect I have specified.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an application for leave to appeal from Christopher Michael Bright, who sought to challenge the sentences imposed upon him by the District Court. The charges against Bright included multiple counts of housebreaking, breaking and entering, and stealing. For each count, Bright was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of three years, in addition to 200 hours of community service. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legality of the combined form of sentence imposed and whether it was authorised by the relevant legislation. The applicant did not appear in court to support his application, and it is unknown if he intends to appear in the future.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the combined sentence of 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of three years, and 200 hours of community service, was authorised by the applicable statute. Given that the applicant did not appear to support his application, the Court did not hear full submissions on the matter. However, the Court was of the view that to avoid any potential questions about the validity of the sentence, it would be appropriate to vary the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Court intended to eliminate the order for community service from the sentences imposed on the first three counts and to eliminate the order for 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of three years, from the sentences imposed on the last three counts.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of McPherson JA, Davies JA, and Jones J, unanimously agreed on the proposed variation of the sentence. The Court held that the sentences should be varied in such a way that the first three counts would carry a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of three years, without the additional requirement of community service. Conversely, the last three counts would involve 200 hours of community service, without the suspended imprisonment sentence. The Court allowed the application and appeal to the extent of varying the sentences in this limited respect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established