R v Bulmer - [1997] QCA 34

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 034
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 493 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Bulmer]

THE QUEEN

PETER JOHN BULMER

(Applicant)

Davies JA
McPherson JA
Fryberg J

Judgment delivered 14 March 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Totality Principle - Sentence imposed cumulatively upon sentence already being served - Effect of sentence on eligibility for parole - Whether outside discretion of sentencing Judge

Counsel:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf Mrs L Clare for the respondent
Solicitors:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 3 February 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 14 March 1997

On 30 August 1996 the applicant was convicted in the District Court on his own plea of guilty of 28 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle (including one with circumstances of aggravation), one count of attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two counts of dangerous driving, one count of serious assault, one count of wilful damage, 14 counts of stealing and one count of false pretences. On the charge of unlawful use with a circumstance of aggravation he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment; on each of the 27 counts of unlawful use and two counts of dangerous driving, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment; on the serious assault count he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; and on each of the other counts he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. A recommendation for consideration for parole on 6 June 1998 was made. The sentences were concurrent with each other but cumulative upon a period of imprisonment then being served by the applicant. In respect of that sentence his expected discharge date (taking into account remissions) was 6 May 1997.

The applicant, who was unrepresented, did not expressly identify which sentences he sought leave to appeal against, but his argument was directed at the sentence of four years. He argued that this sentence, imposed as cumulative upon his existing imprisonment, was manifestly excessive. He seemed to invoke the totality principle.

The offences took place from September 1995 to February 1996. They were interrelated. Typically, the applicant would take a motor vehicle, and steal property from it. The false pretences charge arose from an attempt to sell some of that stolen property. One of the dangerous driving charges arose when police approached a stolen vehicle to apprehend the applicant. While a police officer had hold of the applicant through the driver's side window, he started the vehicle and moved off. The police officer was dragged along the side of the road until he hit the stationary police car and was dislodged. He received bruising to the arms and ribs. That incident was also the subject of the serious assault charge. The wilful damage charge related to a vehicle which was broken into and from which property was stolen. The vehicle 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 Bulmer

Details

AGLC: R v Bulmer [1997] QCA 34
Case: [1997] QCA 34
Decision Date: 14/03/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bulmer involved an application by the applicant, Peter John Bulmer, seeking leave to appeal against his sentence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland by Davies JA, McPherson JA, and Fryberg J. Bulmer, who was unrepresented, was appealing against the sentences imposed upon him by the District Court following his guilty plea to a series of criminal offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Bulmer was manifestly excessive, particularly the four-year sentence for one of the charges, which was cumulative upon the period of imprisonment he was already serving. Bulmer argued that the sentence was disproportionately harsh and invoked the totality principle, suggesting that the cumulative effect of the sentences would unduly extend his incarceration.

The court considered the totality of Bulmer's criminal conduct, which spanned from September 1995 to February 1996. The offences included unlawful use of motor vehicles, dangerous driving, serious assault, and theft, many of which were committed while Bulmer was on parole. The sentencing judge took into account Bulmer's criminal history and the fact that he continued to commit offences despite being on parole. The court found that the sentencing judge's approach was proper and that the sentences were not disproportionate to the criminality involved. The court also noted that the sentences appropriately reflected the favourable aspects of Bulmer's conduct, such as his admissions and cooperation with authorities.

Based on the reasoning above, the Court of Appeal held that the sentences were not outside the discretion of the sentencing judge and were not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

Orders