R v Bullock - [2003] TASSC 37

[2003] TASSC 37

CITATION: R v Bullock [2003] TASSC 37

PARTIES:  R
  v
  BULLOCK, Daniel John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  505/2002
DELIVERED ON:  13 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  5 - 8 May, 3 June 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Miscellaneous matters - Hardship - Good character central to the well being of the family unit - Partial suspension of sentence of imprisonment.

Sullivan 9/1975; Weininger v R (2003) 196 ALR 451, considered.
Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267; Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [847]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Crown: M P Shirley
Respondent: C D Mackie

Solicitors:
Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Legal Aid Commission

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 37
Number of Paragraphs: 16

Serial No 37/2003
File No 505/2002

THE QUEEN v DANIEL JOHN BULLOCK

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

13 June 2003

Daniel John Bullock has been found guilty of the crime of armed robbery, contrary to the Criminal Code, s240. On 26 April 2003, Mr Bullock entered the Pembroke Hotel, Sorell armed with a knife. He demanded money and took some $3,100 in cash. No actual violence was involved, although the presentation of a knife caused fear and acquiescence. The case against the accused was circumstantial in nature but, consistent with the verdict, the conclusion is that the robbery was neither pre-planned or sophisticated in execution. The evidence suggests that, despite the offender's denial, he had a gambling problem. Both Mr Bullock and his wife were in employment, and the family income was sufficient for the maintenance of the family. The evidence suggests that before the robbery, Mr Bullock had been gambling on poker machines at a hotel on the eastern shore of Hobart. It is possible, and not inconsistent with the evidence, that the offender had engaged in gambling activity at the Pembroke Hotel some time before the actual robbery. It is clear that following the robbery, he went to another hotel which conducts gaming activities. Mr Bullock's car was not at his home as of midnight and was first observed by police at that place at about 3am. It is a reasonable inference that for much of the time between approximately 6.30pm and 1.30am, Mr Bullock was engaged in gambling. Mr Bullock, in his interview with police, denied the existence of a gambling problem, but did concede that on a previous occasion he had experienced domestic problems over the use of a credit card used for gambling purposes. The Court requested the provision of an assessment and background report from the Probation Service, but during the course of its preparation, Mr Bullock maintained his position that he did not have a problem. However, the sentence is determined on the basis that the robbery was committed either in order to further his…

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 Bullock

Details

AGLC: R v Bullock [2003] TASSC 37
Case: [2003] TASSC 37
Decision Date: 13 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel John Bullock was found guilty of armed robbery, having entered the Pembroke Hotel, Sorell, armed with a knife and demanded money, taking approximately $3,100 in cash. The crime was not pre-planned or sophisticated, and although no actual violence was used, the presentation of a knife caused fear and acquiescence. The court determined that the robbery was either committed to further his gambling capacity or to hide his losses. Bullock, who has a gambling problem, was found to have led a responsible and productive life prior to the offence, with a strong family unit that relies on his income. The court considered the impact of a custodial sentence on his family, including the potential loss of their home and the hardship it would cause, particularly to his two teenage children.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for armed robbery, taking into account Bullock's good character and the potential hardship to his family. The court had to balance the need for retribution and deterrence with the mitigating factor of Bullock's otherwise good character and the impact of imprisonment on his family. The court also needed to decide whether to suspend part of the sentence to mitigate the impact on the family, while still imposing a meaningful punishment.

The court, after considering the nature of the crime and the need for retribution, determined that an immediate custodial sentence was warranted. However, due to Bullock's good character and the significant impact of imprisonment on his family, the court decided to suspend all but one month of the sentence. The court imposed a condition that Bullock commit no crime or offence involving dishonesty or violence to the person or property for a period of four years and ordered him to pay the sum of $3,100 to the victim within six months of his release from prison. Additionally, Bullock was ordered to undertake 260 hours of community service and pay a compensation order of $3,100 to the victim, Frank Morgan.

The final orders included the conviction of Daniel John Bullock for the crime of armed robbery, a sentence of 15 months imprisonment to commence on 3 June 2003, with the operation of the sentence suspended from 3 July 2003 on certain conditions, including the payment of $3,100 to the victim within six months of his release. Bullock was also ordered to undertake 260 hours of community service and pay a compensation order of $3,100 to Mr Frank Morgan, with a victims of crime compensation levy of $50 to be paid within three months.

Orders