R v Norman - [2011] QCA 267

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Norman [2011] QCA 267

PARTIES:

R
v
NORMAN, Bronson Alexander John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 56 of 2011
DC No 81 of 2011
DC No 447 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 October 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 5 October 2011:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of breaking, entering and stealing, one count of escaping from lawful custody and one count of stealing a pair of police handcuffs – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the breaking, entering and stealing offence, to be served concurrently with one and three months sentences for the stealing and escape offences respectively – where the intoxicated 21 year old applicant used a knife to force entry into a stationary ice cream truck to steal money from the till – where the 13 year old complainant attempted to guard the money till – where the applicant stole $200 – where the applicant fled from police custody when he was being flown from Palm Island Aerodrome to serve a term of imprisonment – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history, including numerous dishonesty offences – where the sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s youth, his attempts to rehabilitate and prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

R v Taylor and Leigep [1997] QCA 159, considered
R v Heath & Anor [1995] QCA 170, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: The applicant, who was 20 years of age at the time the offences were committed, pleaded guilty to one count of breaking, entering and stealing (count 1), one count of escaping from lawful custody (count 2) and one count of stealing a pair of police handcuffs (count 3). He was sentenced on 25 March 2011 in respect of: count 1, to two years imprisonment with a parole release date of 4 November 2011; count 2, to three months imprisonment and count 3, to one months imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The applicant was also fined $250 for an offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) of entering a security zone of a security controlled airport without permission of a responsible aviation industry participant. He seeks leave to appeal against his sentences on the grounds that…

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 Norman

Details

AGLC: R v Norman [2011] QCA 267
Case: [2011] QCA 267
Decision Date: 5 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Norman involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to multiple criminal offences, including breaking and entering, stealing, and escaping lawful custody. The applicant, while intoxicated, used a knife to force entry into a stationary ice cream truck with the intent to steal money from the till. The 13-year-old complainant attempted to protect the money during the incident. The applicant also stole $200 and subsequently escaped from police custody while being transferred to serve a previous term of imprisonment. The sentencing judge imposed a two-year imprisonment term for the breaking and entering and stealing offence, to be served concurrently with one and three-month sentences for the stealing and escape offences, respectively. Given the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included numerous dishonesty offences, the sentencing judge considered the applicant’s youth, attempts at rehabilitation, and prospects for rehabilitation. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or inadequate. In assessing this, the court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing judge's reasoning. The court noted that the sentencing judge had carefully weighed the relevant factors, including the applicant’s youth and potential for rehabilitation, in arriving at the sentences. The court concluded that the sentences were within the range of reasonable responses and were not manifestly excessive. The court found no grounds for interference with the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge.

In light of the above, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning provided by the sentencing judge was thorough, and the court found no basis to conclude that the sentences were manifestly excessive or inadequate. The decision was delivered ex tempore on 5 October 2011, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. This outcome upheld the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, reflecting the court's confidence in the judge's assessment of the case's circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 5 October 2011:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Norman [2011] QCA 267
PARTIES:	R v NORMAN, Bronson Alexander John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 56 of 2011 DC No 81 of 2011 DC No 447 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	5 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 October 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Delivered ex tempore on 5 October 2011: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of breaking, entering and stealing, one count of escaping from lawful custody and one count of stealing a pair of police handcuffs – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the breaking, entering and stealing offence, to be served concurrently with one and three months sentences for the stealing and escape offences respectively – where the intoxicated 21 year old applicant used a knife to force entry into a stationary ice cream truck to steal money from the till – where the 13 year old complainant attempted to guard the money till – where the applicant stole $200 – where the applicant fled from police custody when he was being flown from Palm Island Aerodrome to serve a term of imprisonment – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history, including numerous dishonesty offences – where the sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s youth, his attempts to rehabilitate and prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) R v Taylor and Leigep [1997] QCA 159, considered R v Heath & Anor [1995] QCA 170, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent