R v BULLOCK - [2005] SASC 177

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BULLOCK
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Bleby, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Anderson)
18 May 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12, two counts of serious criminal trespass, larceny - whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive - whether starting point for major offence too high - appeal allowed, head sentence for major offence reduced.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, s 18A, referred to.
R v D (1997) 69 SASR 413; R v Lees [2004] SASC 390; R v Monks [2002] SASC 352, discussed.
R v LLK (2003) 231 LSJS 458; Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339, considered.

R v BULLOCK
[2005] SASC 177
Court of Criminal Appeal: Bleby, Vanstone and Anderson JJ

BLEBY J: I agree with the orders proposed by Vanstone J and with her Honour’s reasons. I have nothing to add to those reasons. I also agree with her Honour’s observations on the procedure that was adopted in this case.
VANSTONE J. This is an appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court for unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 12 years, two counts of serious criminal trespass and one offence of larceny. The learned sentencing Judge imposed head sentences totalling eleven years and a non-parole period of six years.
The appellant first appeared before the District Court on 12 January 2004 on an information charging two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12. On that occasion he pleaded not guilty. On 20 July 2004 he was arraigned on the second count of that information and pleaded guilty. Ms L Boord, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, indicated that the Crown was not proceeding on count 1 although it stood by the allegation. Apparently an arrangement had been reached whereby the court was to be invited to take into account the facts upon which count 1 was based in determining the sentence for count 2, but count 1 itself was not to be further prosecuted. In my view this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs since it means that so far as the record stands there has been no disposition of count 1. The “Report of Prisoner Tried” is marked, against count 1, “not proceeded with”. Additionally it smacks of being a device, presumably used during negotiations to secure a plea of guilty, but which imparts a measure of inconsistency to the process, thereby tending to undermine its integrity.
On 27 October 2004 the Judge was invited to call for an Adelaide Magistrates Court file which contained the information charging the dishonesty offences. Subsequently the appellant pleaded guilty to all three of those charges. The first two of those occurred…

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 [2005] SASC 177
Case: [2005] SASC 177
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bullock, the appellant was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12, two counts of serious criminal trespass, and larceny. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was indeed too severe and if the starting point for the major offence was set too high.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the offences committed, the consideration of whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and the evaluation of whether the starting point for the major offence was appropriately set. The court had to carefully consider the principles of sentencing and the relevant legislative framework in determining whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the starting point for the major offence was too high. The appeal was allowed, and the head sentence for the major offence was reduced. The court provided detailed reasoning for its decision, taking into account the principles of sentencing, the severity of the offences, and the appropriate punishment. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the case and the relevant legal principles.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal, the reduction of the head sentence for the major offence, and the adjustment of the overall sentence imposed on the appellant. The court's decision provided clarity on the appropriate sentencing for the offences committed and ensured that the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the crimes.

Orders