R v Broadbridge - [1994] QCA 278

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 278
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 195 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. Broadbridge]

T H E Q U E E N

KELLY JUSTIN BROADBRIDGE

Applicant

________________________________________________________________

The President
Pincus J.A.
Williams J.
________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 05/08/1994
Joint reasons for judgment of The President and Williams J.,
Pincus J.A. separately. Pincus J.A. dissenting in part.
________________________________________________________________

Application for

leave to appeal against sentence granted.

Appeal allowed.

Sentences imposed below on 20 May 1994 set aside and in lieu

t	hereof order:

1.With respect to the offence of dangerous driving, the applicant is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 6 months.

2.With respect to each of the offences of burglary and stealing,

the applicant is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

3.All sentences to be served concurrently.

4.The sentences of imprisonment date from 20 May 1994.

________________________________________________________________
_

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - dangerous driving - applicant drove at police officer who was trying to stop him - sentence of 3 years imposed - burglary - applicant committed offence with two co-accused - pleaded guilty - first offence - sentenced to 12 months imprisonment - whether manifestly excessive.

Counsel:Mr M Byrne Q.C. for the Crown.

Mr G Long for the applicant.

Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions for the Crown.

Legal Aid Office for the applicant.

Date of hearing:01/08/1994.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 05/08/1994

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence relating to three convictions on pleas of guilty. The first two offences were committed about 30 December 1992 and the third on 5 June 1993; the applicant, who was born on 4 November 1974, was 18 years of age when the offences were committed.

Counts 1 and 2 relating to the December 1992 offences concerned activities in which the applicant engaged with two co- accused while driving about in a vehicle. The three noticed that, although it was bin collection day, there was no garbage bin outside a particular house. That prompted the thought that the house must be unoccupied, so they broke in and stole some jewellery. The three offenders were promptly apprehended by the police and charged with burglary and with stealing; the applicant was granted bail.

The applicant's next offences were committed while on bail, four months later, on 26 April 1993. They were possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a pipe used in connection with smoking a dangerous drug, and possession of a utensil used in connection with the preparation of a dangerous drug. On the following day the applicant was convicted of these offences and fined a total of $325.00. These offences are not the subject of the present application but are mentioned as part of the history.

On 5 June 1993, the applicant was travelling on a road at a speed which was measured by a police officer, operating a radar instrument, at 145 kph. The police officer, wearing a reflectorised vest and…

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 Broadbridge

Details

AGLC: R v Broadbridge [1994] QCA 278
Case: [1994] QCA 278
Decision Date: 5/08/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Broadbridge, the applicant, Kelly Justin Broadbridge, was convicted of three separate offences: dangerous driving, burglary, and stealing. The applicant was sentenced by the primary judge to imprisonment for 3 years on the dangerous driving charge and 12 months on the burglary offence, with both sentences to be served concurrently. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive in light of his youth and plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sentences imposed on 20 May 1994.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed by the primary judge for dangerous driving, burglary, and stealing were manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the 3-year imprisonment sentence for dangerous driving was manifestly excessive, and that the 12-month imprisonment sentence for burglary was disproportionate given his age and plea of guilty. The Crown argued that the primary judge was entitled to impose the sentences he did, and that there was no error in his Honour's approach to sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge was entitled to impose a sentence of imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence, but that the 3-year imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's youth and relatively slight criminal history, and proposed to replace the 3-year imprisonment sentence with one of 18 months, with a recommendation for parole after 6 months. The Court of Appeal also found that the 12-month imprisonment sentence for the burglary offence was not justified in view of the applicant's age and plea of guilty. In light of the applicant serving a term of imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence, the Court of Appeal considered it unnecessary to impose any punishment for the burglary and stealing offences. The Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for 6 months with respect to each of the offences of burglary and stealing, to be served concurrently with each other and with the period of imprisonment with respect to the dangerous driving offence.

In summary, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sentences imposed by the primary judge. The Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence, with a recommendation for parole after 6 months, and a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for each of the burglary and stealing offences, to be served concurrently.

Orders