R v Brockfield - [1993] QCA 348

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 348

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 229 of 1993

Brisbane
[R. v. Brockfield]

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROCKFIELD

(Applicant)

The President
Mr. Justice Ambrose
Justice White

Judgment delivered 21/09/93
Judgment of the Court

GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE. ALLOW THE APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BELOW AND IN LIEU THEREOF RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE AFTER SERVING 9 MONTHS OF HIS SENTENCE.

CATCHWORDS: Indecent assault - Sentencing Remarks - Recommendation for parole - Legislative Scheme for the release of prisoners on parole - Corrective Services Act 1988.

Counsel: Applicant in person

Mr J Henry for the respondent

Solicitors: Applicant in person

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 18/08/93
THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 229 of 1993

Brisbane
Before The President

Ambrose J.
White J.

[R. v. Brockfield]

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROCKFIELD

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT.

Judgment delivered 21/09/93

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the failure of the sentencing judge to make a recommendation for release on parole or, alternatively, objects to remarks made by him when passing sentence that might have the affect of preventing his release to community based supervision in accordance with the statutory scheme prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed. No complaint was made concerning the sentence of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment which was imposed.

The applicant was found guilty of indecent assault upon a young woman in February 1992. He had seen her that night at a nightclub where they had both been drinking but they were unknown to each other. When the club closed around 1 a.m. the complainant decided to walk home because her boyfriend was lingering speaking to someone. She passed the applicant at a bus stop, and he mumbled something. The complainant felt a little uneasy and started to run and the applicant followed her, tackled her near a vacant allotment and pushed her to the ground. A struggle ensued in the course of which the applicant put his hand up the complainant's skirt and attempted to insert a finger into her vagina. In the course of doing so, he caused a 4 cm. scratch along the left lip of her vagina which bled. The complainant's screams, which the applicant had attempted to suppress by putting his hand over her face, aroused a couple asleep in the house across the road. The man ran out and challenged the applicant who ran off. He was chased for some kilometres and in due course the police arrived. During the period at the end of the chase when the man, a Mr. Darcy, had enlisted the aid of a taxi driver, he had an opportunity to observe the applicant and noted that he was visibly affected by alcohol.

The applicant's story told to the investigating police was that he believed that the complainant was…

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 Brockfield

Details

AGLC: R v Brockfield [1993] QCA 348
Case: [1993] QCA 348
Decision Date: 21/09/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brockfield, the applicant, Christopher James Brockfield, sought leave to appeal against the sentencing judge's failure to recommend his eligibility for parole and objected to remarks made by the sentencing judge that might prevent his release under the statutory scheme prior to the expiration of his sentence. Brockfield had been convicted of indecent assault and was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge's remarks and failure to recommend parole eligibility were appropriate and in line with the statutory scheme for parole eligibility under the Corrective Services Act 1988.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's recommendation, in effect, recommended later release on parole. The Court noted that the remarks made by the sentencing judge could be given weight by a Community Corrections Board and would likely operate adversely against Brockfield. The Court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that Brockfield had a psychiatric or psychological problem that made him a danger to women, apart from the offence itself. The Court held that the sentencing judge's remarks did not reflect the evidence in the case and were not appropriate. The Court further noted that Brockfield had been on bail for 16 months before his trial, and this factor might justify a recommendation for early release on parole.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the recommendation made by the sentencing judge. In lieu of the original recommendation, the Court recommended that Brockfield should be considered as eligible for release on parole after serving 9 months of his sentence. This decision acknowledged the unusual circumstances of the case and aimed to balance the need for punishment with the statutory scheme for parole eligibility.

Orders