Regina v Bradley - [2004] NSWCCA 88

CITATION: R v Bradley [2004] NSWCCA 88

HEARING DATE(S): 24 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; James J at 30; Dunford J at 31

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused.

CASES CITED: R v Burrell (2000) 114 A Crim R 207
R v Goodwin (1990) 51 A Crim R 328
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587

PARTIES :
Regina v Lisa Maree Bradley

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60060/04

COUNSEL: E. Wilkins (Crown)
P. Hamill (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh (Crown)
S. O'Connor (Appellant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/71/0045

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Blackmore SC DCJ

60060/04

STUDDERT J
JAMES J
DUNFORD J
Tuesday 6 April 2004

REGINA v LISA MAREE BRADLEY

Judgment

1 STUDDERT J: The applicant, Lisa Maree Bradley, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon her in the District Court by his Honour Judge Blackmore SC on 29 July 2003. On that date the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, and his Honour was asked to take into account four further drug offences on a Form 1. His Honour imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment to date from the date of sentence and, having found special circumstances, set a non parole period of one year.

2 As his Honour remarked, the facts concerning the offences were reduced to writing and were tendered without objection. I draw on his Honour’s remarks on sentence to set out those facts:

“Those facts are these: as a result of information received, police applied for and obtained a search warrant for premises located at 165 Britannia Street, Temora. At 10.30 am on Friday 7 March 2003, police from Wagga Wagga attended that address and executed the search warrant. The occupier’s notice was served on Lisa Bradley and she was then spoken to by police.

The offender led police to her room. Once in her room, the offender opened a cane bedside cupboard and took a red ice cream container out of the cupboard. Upon opening the red container, police located five resealable plastic bags containing vegetable matter. The offender told the police that the vegetable matter was cannabis that belonged to her and was for her own personal use.

Analysis of the vegetable matter confirmed that it was 10.8 grams of cannabis leaf. This was one of the matters dealt with on the Form 1. Also in the red ice cream container were five resealable bags containing white powder. When shown those bags, the offender admitted that the white powder was amphetamine. The offender further stated that the amphetamine was hers for her own personal use. Analysis of the white powder contained in the five resealable plastic bags confirmed it to be .42 grams of amphetamine. Again this offence is one of the ones on the Form 1.

Also in the red ice cream container were two plastic bags, each plastic bag contained a capsule. The offender told police that she believed the capsules…

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 Regina v Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley [2004] NSWCCA 88
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 88
Decision Date: 6 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Lisa Maree Bradley, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon her by the District Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited drug and had four further drug offences noted on a Form 1. The District Court Judge, Blackmore SC, imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge was unaware of her significant back injury sustained from a motor vehicle accident, which required medical treatment and regular exercise. The applicant submitted that this important factual material should have been presented to the sentencing judge, and that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the shortcomings in her legal representation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the legal issues regarding whether the applicant’s back injury was a relevant factor for the sentencing judge to consider and whether the sentencing process miscarried due to the failure to present this evidence. The Court cited relevant principles from previous cases, which stated that a person’s health may be a relevant factor in the sentencing process, but ill health cannot be allowed to become a licence to commit crime. The Court had to determine whether the applicant’s back condition made imprisonment a greater burden on her or if there was a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on her health.

After reviewing the medical evidence presented by the applicant, the Court found that the applicant’s back injury was stable, and she was not at risk of any serious adverse effects from imprisonment. The Court concluded that had the medical evidence been presented to the sentencing judge, it was unlikely to have influenced him to impose a lesser sentence. Therefore, the Court found that the sentencing process did not miscarry, and the evidence sought to be relied upon by the applicant should not be received.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of Studdert J, James J, and Dunford J, unanimously agreed to refuse leave to appeal.

Orders