R v Broome - [2009] QCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Broome [2009] QCA 31

PARTIES:

R
v
BROOME, Roslyn June
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 285 of 2008
DC No 44 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir JJA, and P Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE — GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE — SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE — where offences committed with respect to present application committed whilst applicant on parole for like offences — where applicant alleged unfortunate personal circumstances warrant appellate interference with sentence — whether sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by P Lyons J. I agree with those reasons and the order proposed by his Honour.

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of P Lyons J and with the order he proposes.

P LYONS J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on her on 10 October 2008.

She pleaded guilty to five counts: one of robbery with personal violence; one of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence; one of assault occasioning bodily harm; one of wilful and unlawful damage to property; and one of stealing.

The offences were committed when the applicant was on parole with a period of approximately seven months remaining to be served of a sentence previously imposed on her. She has been required to serve that period (terminating on

13 March 2009), cumulatively with the sentences imposed on 10 October 2008.

On the count of robbery, the sentence imposed on 10 October 2008 was imprisonment for three years. On each of the other four counts, the sentence was imprisonment for 12 months; all to be served concurrently.

At the same time the Court dealt with a summary offence (committed on 9 October 2008) of which the applicant was convicted, but not further punished. It is not the subject of this application.

Circumstances of the Offence

After 9 pm on 7 August 2008, the applicant approached the first complainant at a service station, asking for a light for a cigarette. She appeared to be intoxicated. The complainant gave her a cigarette lighter which he retrieved from his vehicle. She then asked for a cigarette, and when this complainant said he did not smoke, she became aggressive. She grabbed the complainant by the hair. She then proceeded to lean into his vehicle and rummage around inside it (the count relating to entering premises). The complainant then noticed that the applicant had his wallet. There…

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 Broome

Details

AGLC: R v Broome [2009] QCA 31
Case: [2009] QCA 31
Decision Date: 25 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Broome, the applicant, having been convicted for offences committed while on parole, sought an appeal against the sentence imposed. The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the applicant's personal circumstances warranted appellate interference. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate due to the mitigating factors presented by his unfortunate personal circumstances.

The court examined the principles governing appellate interference with sentences, focusing on the concept of manifest excessiveness or inadequacy. It considered the nature of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing remarks made by the trial judge. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed and that the applicant's personal circumstances, while unfortunate, did not render the sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and reflected the gravity of the offences.

Given the findings, the court refused the applicant's appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was deemed appropriate and no grounds for appellate interference were found. The orders of the court were that the application be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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 Broome [2009] QCA 31
PARTIES:	R v BROOME, Roslyn June (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 285 of 2008 DC No 44 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gympie
DELIVERED ON:	25 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Muir JJA, and P Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE — GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE — SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE — where offences committed with respect to present application committed whilst applicant on parole for like offences — where applicant alleged unfortunate personal circumstances warrant appellate interference with sentence — whether sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent