Regina v Bronson Mathew Blessington - [2005] NSWSC 340

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Regina v Bronson Mathew Blessington [2005] NSWSC 340

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S): L026/96

HEARING DATE{S): 3 December 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 15/04/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Bronson Mathew Blessington

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
R D Cogswell SC / A Mitchelmore - Crown
J Basten QC / R W Burgess - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
I V Knight - Crown
S O'Connor - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing - redetermination - life sentences - non-release recommendation - effect of - amendments to legislation - whether application duly made - whether such application affected by subsequent amendments

ACTS CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001 No 29
Interpretation Act
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Sentencing Act 1989
Sentencing (Life Sentences) Amendment Act 1989
Sentencing (Life Sentences) Amendment Act 1993
Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act 1997 No 6
Sentencing Amendment (Transitional) Act 1997 No 8

DECISION:
Answers to questions: 1 (a) and (b) yes; (2) no; (3) no as to the making of the application but yes as regards the determination of the application; (4) no; (5) Does not arise; (6) Does not arise; (7) no.

JUDGMENT:

- 17 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUNFORD J
FRIDAY 15 APRIL 2005
L026/96 REGINA v BRONSON MATTHEW BLESSINGTON
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: On 28 November 1996, the applicant, Bronson Mathew Blessington made an application for re-determination of his life sentence pursuant to s 13A Sentencing Act 1989 as it then stood, and by Notice of Motion filed 19 August 2004 he seeks the separate determination of the questions identified in the annexure to such Notice of Motion.
Mr Basten QC and Ms Burgess appeared for the Applicant and the Crown Advocate (Mr R D Cogswell SC) and Ms Mitchelmore appeared for the Crown. The applicant contends inter alia that some of the statutory provisions relied on by the Crown are inconsistent with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution and accordingly notice of the proceedings was given to the Attorney General of each of the States and Territories pursuant to s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Crown Advocate and Ms Mitchelmore also appear to intervene on behalf of the Attorney General of New South Wales, but only on the constitutional issues. The other State and Territory Attorneys General indicated that they did not wish to be heard.
On 8 September 1988, a group of five “street kids” who had no fixed place of abode including the Applicant, then aged 14, abducted Janine Balding from the car park at Sutherland Railway Station in her own car, sexually assaulted her and then drowned her in a dam near Minchinbury. Some of her jewellery and personal possessions were taken.
The Applicant was tried along with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Bronson Mathew Blessington and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 340
Decision Date: 15 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Blessington involved an appeal by the respondent, Bronson Mathew Blessington, against his conviction for various offences, including murder. The appeal focused on the sentencing aspect, specifically the non-release recommendation made by the sentencing judge. Blessington was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-release recommendation, meaning he would not be eligible for parole. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the legal basis of this recommendation in light of subsequent legislative changes.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge was required to make an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal to reconsider the non-release recommendation after amendments to the relevant legislation were enacted. The court had to determine if the absence of such an application rendered Blessington's non-release recommendation invalid. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether any subsequent legislative amendments affected the validity of the non-release recommendation.

The court held that the sentencing judge was not obligated to make an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal to reconsider the non-release recommendation following legislative amendments. The court reasoned that the original non-release recommendation was validly made and remained in effect unless properly quashed or varied by a competent court. The court also found that the subsequent legislative amendments did not impact the validity of the non-release recommendation. The High Court concluded that the non-release recommendation remained valid, and Blessington's appeal against his sentence was dismissed. Consequently, Blessington's life sentence with a non-release recommendation stood affirmed.

Orders