R v Bui; R v Beedar - [2002] SASC 407

R v Tuan Van BUI and Idris BEEDAR
[2002] SASC 407
Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Debelle and Williams JJ

DUGGAN J. The appellants have appealed against their respective sentences for various offences, some of which were committed jointly. The offences and the starting points for penalties considered appropriate by the learned sentencing judge prior to the application of the principle of totality are set out in the following tables. The joint offences are numbered 7, 8 and 9 in the table.
The appellant Beedar

No.
Date Offence Plea of guilty or jury verdict Youth / Adult Penalty before
application of
principle of totality

1

2

31/10/99

31/10/99

Unlawful wounding at Shell Service Station, Hectorville

Unlawful wounding at Shell Service Station, Hectorville

Plea of guilty

Plea of guilty

Youth

Youth
2 years }
            }
            }- concurrent
            }
2 years }

3

4

5

6

26/2/00

“    “   “

“    “   “

“   “   “

Unlawful wounding – Currie Street

Unlawful wounding – Currie Street

Unlawful wounding – Currie Street

Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Currie Street

Plea of guilty during trial

“     “    “     “

“    “     “       “

“     “     “

Youth

Youth

Youth

Youth
3 years   }
            }
            }
3 years   }
            }
            }- concurrent
3 years   }
            }
            }
6 years   }

7 20/9/00 Robbery with violence – BP Kilkenny Service Station Verdict of jury Adult
6 years cumulative

8 26/9/00 Armed robbery – Shell Service Station – Valley View Plea of guilty Adult 6 years cumulative

9 6/10/00 Robbery with violence – Holden Hill Video Games Warehouse Verdict of jury Adult 10 years cumulative

Total 30 years
The appellant Bui

No. Date Offence Plea of guilty or jury verdict
Youth / Adult
Penalty before application of principle of totality

7

20/9/00

Robbery with
Violence –
BP Kilkenny Service Station

Verdict of jury

Adult

8 years

8

26/9/00

Armed robbery – Shell Service Station – Valley View

Plea of guilty

Adult

7½ years

9

6/10/00

Robbery with violence – Holden Hill Video Games Warehouse

Verdict of jury

Adult

12 years

10 3/1/0/00 Armed robbery – Mobil Service Station – Holden Hill Plea of guilty Adult 9 years

Total 36½ years

No.	Date	Offence	Plea of guilty or jury verdict	Youth / Adult	Penalty before application of principle of totality
1 2	31/10/99 31/10/99	Unlawful wounding at Shell Service Station, Hectorville Unlawful wounding at Shell Service Station, Hectorville	Plea of guilty Plea of guilty	Youth Youth	2 years } } }- concurrent } 2 years }
3 4 5 6	26/2/00 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “	Unlawful wounding – Currie Street Unlawful wounding – Currie Street Unlawful wounding – Currie Street Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Currie Street	Plea of guilty during trial “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “	Youth Youth Youth Youth	3 years } } } 3 years } } }- concurrent 3 years } } } 6 years }
7	20/9/00	Robbery with violence – BP Kilkenny Service Station	Verdict of jury	Adult	6 years cumulative
8	26/9/00	Armed robbery – Shell Service Station – Valley View	Plea of guilty	Adult	6 years cumulative
9	6/10/00	Robbery with violence – Holden Hill Video Games Warehouse	Verdict of jury	Adult	10 years cumulative
Total 30 years

After indicating the appropriate penalties prior to the application of the principle of totality, the learned sentencing judge then applied that principle and sentenced Beedar to imprisonment for 18 years with a non-parole period of 10 years. Bui was sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years with a non-parole period of 12 years.
In order to discuss the issues to which the appeal gave rise, it is necessary to refer shortly to the details of the offences.
Offences 1 and 2
The appellant Beedar and some of his friends attended a party at Athelstone. They were told to leave. One of the persons who told them to leave was Mr Gramazio. In the early hours of the following morning Beedar drove to the Shell Service Station at Hectorville and confronted Mr Gramazio and a…

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 Bui; R v Beedar

Details

AGLC: R v Bui; R v Beedar [2002] SASC 407
Case: [2002] SASC 407
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Tuan Van Bui and Idris Beedar, have appealed against their respective sentences for various offences, some of which were committed jointly. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed on the appellants for their involvement in multiple violent offences, including unlawful wounding, robbery with violence, and armed robbery. The appellants challenged the severity of their sentences, arguing that the trial judge had improperly increased the penalties for subsequent offences based on prior offending without adequate justification.

The Court of Criminal Appeal addressed several legal issues, including the appropriate application of the principle of totality in sentencing, the relevance of prior offending in determining the severity of sentences for subsequent crimes, and the need to balance the sentencing principles applicable to youth offenders with the gravity of the crimes committed. The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in increasing the penalties for later offences in the series simply because they followed earlier ones, and whether such increases were justified by the relative seriousness of the offences or the appellants' criminal histories.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in increasing the penalties for subsequent offences without adequate justification. The judges concluded that while prior offending is relevant in sentencing, it cannot justify disproportionate increases in penalties for later crimes in a series, especially when those crimes were committed within a short period. The court recalculated the appropriate sentences for the appellants, taking into account the principle of totality and the nature of the offences. The Court substituted new sentences for both appellants, reducing the overall penalties to reflect what they considered to be appropriate, given the circumstances and the principles of sentencing law.

Orders