Attorney-General (Tas) v Knight - [2003] TASSC 77

[2003] TASSC 77

CITATION: Attorney-General (Tas) v Knight [2003] TASSC 77

PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF TASMANIA
v
KNIGHT, Timothy Keith

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 50/2003
DELIVERED ON:  28 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  18 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Crawford and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account - Character of offence – Assaulting a police officer in the execution of duty – General deterrence looms large in the exercise of the sentencing discretion – Aggravating features.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [832]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M P Shirley
             Respondent:  K L Baumeler
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 77
Number of Paragraphs: 28

Serial No 77/2003
File No CCA 50/2003

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TASMANIA
v TIMOTHY KEITH KNIGHT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
BLOW J
28 August 2003

Orders of the Court:

Orders made on 13 June 2003 quashed and in lieu thereof:

Appeal allowed.
Orders of sentence quashed.
A conviction for the crime of assaulting a police officer acting in the due execution of his duty.
A sentence of six months' imprisonment to commence on 2 August 2003.
A probation order for a period of 18 months following the respondent's release from prison.

Serial No 77/2003
File No CCA 50/2003

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TASMANIA
v TIMOTHY KEITH KNIGHT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
BLOW J
28 August 2003

The sentence and the appeal

The respondent was convicted of one count of assaulting a police officer contrary to the Criminal Code, s114. The charge alleged that on 10 November 2001, the respondent assaulted Detective Constable Berry, a police officer acting in the due execution of his duty, "by choking him with his tie, punching and kicking his head and by biting his ear".

Also charged on the same indictment with assaulting Detective Constable Berry was the respondent's mother, Gail Maree Cameron. The particulars to that count allege that Ms Cameron assaulted Detective Constable Berry "by choking him with his tie and by kicking him in the face".

Both the respondent and his mother were found guilty. With respect to the respondent, the learned sentencing judge made the following orders of sentence:

·   a conviction;
·   a term of imprisonment for six months to commence as from 22 May 2003;
·   the operation of that sentence to be suspended from 14 June 2003 on the following conditions:
(a)the respondent commit no crime or offence involving violence to the person or property or any offence involving disturbance of the peace for a period of three years;
(b)for a period of 15 months following his release from prison, the respondent:
(i)submit to the supervision of a probation officer;
(ii)attend such education and other programs as directed by…

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 Attorney-General (Tas) v Knight 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: [2003] TASSC 77
Decision Date: 28 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Tas) v Knight involved the respondent, Knight, who was convicted of assaulting a police officer while in the execution of their duty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where Knight appealed against his sentence. Knight had assaulted a police officer in a manner that was deemed to be particularly serious due to its violent nature and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The appeal centred on the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the lower court, with Knight arguing that the sentence was excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the nature of the offence. The court was required to consider the character of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter such conduct in the future with the individual circumstances of the offender.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving assault on a police officer in the execution of their duty. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the violent nature of the assault and the need to protect law enforcement officers. The court also considered the aggravating features of the offence, including the use of a weapon and the level of force used against the officer. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and was necessary to achieve the aims of general deterrence and protection of law enforcement officers.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence. It was determined that the sentence was appropriate and necessary to address the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The judgment underscored the importance of protecting police officers and ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of crimes against law enforcement personnel.

Orders