R v Bundi Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 004

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 357 of 1994

Before     The President
          Mr Justice McPherson
          Justice White

[R. v. Bundi]

BETWEEN:
T H E Q U E E N

v.

JOHN GABRIEL BUNDI
(Respondent)

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(Appellant)

The President

Mr Justice McPherson
Justice White

Judgment delivered 10/02/94

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL ALLOWED. SET ASIDE ORDERS BELOW IN MAGISTRATES COURT ON 07.09.93. SUBSTITUTE A SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH CHARGE AND ORDER A CONVICTION BE RECORDED FOR EACH OFFENCE.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - repetition of minor offences - persistent and incorrigible offender - alcoholic - current offences to be viewed in context of other behaviour.

Counsel:Mr. J. Hunter for the Crown
Mr. T. Carmody for the respondent

Solicitors: Director of Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Office for the respondent

Hearing Date: 08/02/94

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 10/03/94

The Attorney-General has appealed against sentences imposed upon John Gabriel Bundi in the Magistrates Court at Cunnamulla on 7 September 1993. The respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of receiving on 17 July 1993 and one of stealing on 5 August 1993. On the receiving count, no conviction was recorded and the respondent was placed on probation for two years with a special condition that he undertake medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as ordered by an authorised officer of the Corrective Services Commission. On the stealing charge, he was granted an absolute discharge.
     The offences were not particularly serious. On 17 July 1993, the respondent was found in possession of foodstuffs, clothing and four swords stolen earlier that morning from a dwelling at Inala which had been broken and entered. On 5 August 1993, the respondent stole a bottle of vinegar from a general grocery store at Cunnamulla, in the mistaken belief that the bottle contained menthylated spirits. According to submissions made on his behalf, the respondent is an alcoholic.    One can sympathise with his plight. However the course adopted by the Magistrate was entirely inappropriate.
     The respondent was born on 23 July 1959 and is 34 years of age. He has been a persistent offender since the middle of 1975. His criminal history sheets extend to 12 pages, including 47 convictions for offences of dishonesty. The present offence of receiving was committed whilst the respondent was on parole and the offence of stealing whilst he was on parole and on bail. He had previously been placed on probation in September 1977 and July 1989 and, in each case, he reoffended shortly afterwards. Further, he had been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions, including sentences of 2 years, 21 months and 15 months.
     His counsel submitted that the responded "is more appropriately described as a social nuisance rather than an arrogant recidivist", but accepted that he "is clearly a persistent and almost incorrigible offender."
     The Magistrate seems to have focused upon the offences for which the respondent was sentenced on 7 September 1993, but those offences cannot be viewed in isolation but must be seen in the context of the respondent's past behaviour. It is apparent that it was inappropriate not to record a conviction and there was no evident purpose in placing the respondent on probation.
     A term of imprisonment was called for. Having regard to the circumstances that this is an appeal by the Attorney-General and that the sentencing Magistrate obviously considered that the maximum leniency should be extended to the respondent, the term of imprisonment is set at 6 months.
     The appeal against the sentences imposed on the respondent is therefore allowed and the sentences imposed on 7 September 1993 are set aside. In lieu, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months on each charge, to be served concurrently. A conviction is recorded in respect of each offence.

In the case of R v Bundi, the respondent, John Gabriel Bundi, was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Cunnamulla after pleading guilty to one count of receiving stolen goods and one count of stealing. The Attorney-General of Queensland has appealed against the sentences imposed, arguing that they were unduly lenient given Bundi's extensive criminal history. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the original sentences were appropriate and whether they should be altered. The appeal centred on whether the sentences reflected the seriousness of Bundi's persistent offending behaviour and whether the sentencing court had appropriately considered his history of dishonesty and repeated failures to comply with parole and probation orders.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature and extent of Bundi's criminal history, which included 47 convictions for offences of dishonesty, spanning almost two decades. The Court noted that Bundi had repeatedly reoffended despite numerous opportunities for rehabilitation through probation and parole. The Court found that the Magistrate's decision not to record a conviction and to place Bundi on probation was inappropriate, given his persistent offending. The Court also highlighted that the Magistrate had focused too narrowly on the current offences without adequately considering Bundi's broader criminal conduct. The Court emphasised that Bundi's alcoholism and social issues, while sympathetic, did not excuse his repeated criminal behaviour.

In light of the appeal and the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court. The Court substituted the sentences with imprisonment for six months on each charge, to be served concurrently. The Court also ordered that a conviction be recorded for each offence. This decision underscores the importance of considering an offender's entire criminal history when determining an appropriate sentence, particularly for persistent offenders who have repeatedly failed to reform.

R v Bundi

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established