Legal Research
Cases
R v Broadbent

R v Broadbent

Case [2009] VSCA 320 23 December 2009

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 922 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
NATHAN JONATHAN BROADBENT

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and BUCHANAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 320
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Broadbent (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hampel, 30 November 2007)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Two counts of armed robbery – Mental illness – Offender unable to appreciate effect on victims – Reduced culpability - Subsequent remorse – Offender regretted effect of conduct on victims – Whether ‘qualified’ acceptance of remorse justified – Community protection – Offender’s condition controlled by medication – Whether risk to community – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms G Cannon	Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C Boyce	Brugman Mellas

MAXWELL P
BUCHANAN JA:

This is an appeal against sentence imposed in the County Court. The appellant (‘Broadbent’) pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced as set out below.

COUNT	OFFENCE	MAXIMUM	SENTENCE	CUMULATION
1	Armed robbery	25y	5y	Fully concurrent
2	Armed robbery	25y	5y	Fully concurrent
Total effective sentence: 5y Non-parole period: 3y

Details of the offending

The armed robbery took place on 19 March 2007, at a pharmacy. Broadbent, who had spent the night in a park nearby, watched the pharmacist and two young female employees as they opened the pharmacy at around 8:45 am. After the security roller door had been unlocked and lowered again (but not locked), Broadbent entered the premises, armed with two knives.

Broadbent grabbed one of the female employees (‘H’). He held a knife to her throat and threatened the others. He then demanded that the pharmacist open the drug safe and place all the narcotic drugs in a backpack he had brought with him. Broadbent continued to threaten the staff. In particular, he threatened to hurt H, whom he was still holding. Once the drugs had been placed in the backpack, Broadbent demanded money from the register. (These events constitute the first count of armed robbery.)

Broadbent then demanded the pharmacist’s wallet. The pharmacist replied that his credit cards would be of no use. Broadbent then demanded the pharmacist’s licence, which he handed over. (These facts constitute the second count of armed robbery.)

Broadbent held H throughout the robbery. Just before he fled, he held the knife even more firmly against her throat and threatened the staff if they tried to prevent or hamper his escape.

Broadbent was born in January 1986. He was 21 at the time of the offences. He had no prior convictions. He had appeared in court (Children’s Court and Magistrates’ Court) on three prior occasions, on a total of nine charges. On each occasion he was sentenced to be released on a bond or probation.

Mental illness and remorse

Grounds 2, 3 and 5 were argued together. These grounds contended (respectively) that the judge had…

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 Broadbent

Details

AGLC: R v Broadbent [2009] VSCA 320
Case: [2009] VSCA 320
Decision Date: 23 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Broadbent, the appellant, Broadbent, appealed against his sentence for two counts of armed robbery, contending that it was excessive. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant given his mental health condition, his appreciation of the impact of his crimes on the victims, and the level of remorse shown. Broadbent argued that his mental illness significantly reduced his culpability and that his subsequent remorse and regret for the harm caused should have been considered more favourably in determining his sentence. The court was also required to assess the risk Broadbent posed to the community and whether it could be effectively managed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that Broadbent's mental illness did indeed affect his culpability, as he was unable to fully appreciate the impact of his crimes on the victims at the time of the offences. The court acknowledged that Broadbent's condition was controlled by medication, reducing the risk he posed to the community. Additionally, the court recognised Broadbent's genuine remorse and regret for his actions, which it considered a mitigating factor. The court had to balance these factors against the need for community protection and deterrence. After careful consideration, the court concluded that Broadbent's sentence was excessive and allowed the appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed Broadbent's appeal and substituted a lesser sentence, reflecting the mitigating factors and the reduced risk to the community. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the full context of an offender's circumstances, including mental health, in determining an appropriate sentence that balances the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders