Legal Research
Cases
Armstrong v Tasmania

Armstrong v Tasmania

Case [2017] TASCCA 18 5 October 2017

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2017] TASCCA 18

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Armstrong v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 18

PARTIES:  ARMSTRONG, Shaun Robert
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1860/2017
DELIVERED ON:  5 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Estcourt J and Marshall AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Attempted aggravated armed robbery – Sentence of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment with 9 months thereof suspended and eligibility for parole after 10½ months – Remorseful young man with no prior criminal convictions – Not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  P Monk
             Respondent:  J Dennison
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 18
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 18/2017
File No 1860/2017

SHAUN ROBERT ARMSTRONG v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
ESTCOURT J
MARSHALL AJ
5 October 2017

Order of the Court (3 October 2017)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 18/2017
File No 1860/2017

SHAUN ROBERT ARMSTRONG v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
5 October 2017

The appellant, Shaun Armstrong, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted aggravated armed robbery. Pearce J sentenced him to 2 years 6 months' imprisonment, with 9 months thereof suspended, and eligibility for parole after serving half of the balance of 21 months' imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. At the conclusion of the hearing, this Court dismissed the appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date.
My reasons for joining in the making of the order dismissing the appeal are the same as those stated by Estcourt J and Marshall AJ.
File No 1860/2017

SHAUN ROBERT ARMSTRONG v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
5 October 2017

The appeal

The appellant, Shaun Robert Armstrong, appeals against a sentence imposed upon him by Pearce J on 26 June 2017.
His Honour convicted the appellant of the crime of attempted aggravated armed robbery and sentenced him to imprisonment for two years and six months from 9 June 2017, nine months of which were suspended for three years. His Honour ordered that the appellant not be eligible for parole until he had served half of the actual term of imprisonment imposed.
The sole ground of the appellant's appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The law

The frequently stated legal principles applicable to appeals against sentence on the ground of manifest excess or inadequacy are clear and well settled. They can be found succinctly stated in Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1 at [31]–[34], per Porter J, and in Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce [2015] TASCCA 1 at [8], per Pearce J.

The sentence

The learned sentencing judge…

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 Armstrong v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Armstrong v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 18
Case: [2017] TASCCA 18
Decision Date: 5 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Armstrong appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania for attempted aggravated armed robbery. The sentence comprised two years and six months imprisonment, with nine months suspended, and eligibility for parole after ten and a half months. The appellant was described as a remorseful young man with no prior criminal convictions.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby providing grounds for interference on appeal.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly the threshold for demonstrating that a sentence is "manifestly excessive." In this instance, the Court found that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account relevant factors, including the appellant's youth, remorse, and lack of prior convictions, alongside the seriousness of the offence. The Court concluded that the sentence, when viewed in its entirety and considering the mitigating factors, was not outside the bounds of what a sentencing judge could reasonably impose. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders