Attorney-General (Tas) v Wells - [2003] TASSC 78

[2003] TASSC 78

CITATION: Attorney-General (Tas) v Wells [2003] TASSC 78

PARTIES:  ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Her Majesty's
  v
  WELLS, Reginald Michael
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Her Majesty's
  v
  WEST, Timothy John

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 60/2003

CCA 61/2003

DELIVERED ON:  28 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Homicide – Manslaughter – Practice and procedure – Sentence – Householder left bound and gagged after aggravated burglary – Whether appropriate tariff – Whether four years' imprisonment manifestly inadequate.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [129]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  D G Coates SC
             Respondent - Wells:  G A Richardson
             Respondent - West:  M I Evans
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent - Wells:  G A Richardson
             Respondent – West:  Beeton & Mansell

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 78
Number of paragraphs: 29

Serial No 78/2003
File No CCA 60/2003
CCA 61/2003

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL v REGINALD MICHAEL WELLS
HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TIMOTHY JOHN WEST

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD J
SLICER J
BLOW J
28 August 2003

Orders of the Court

Appeals upheld.
In each appeal, the sentence is quashed.
In each appeal, in lieu, the respondent is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years to commence in the case of Reginald Michael Wells on 3 June 2003 and in the case of Timothy John West on 22 October 2002.
In each case, it is ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he has served four years of the sentence.

Serial No 78/2003
File No CCA 60/2003
CCA 61/2003

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL v REGINALD MICHAEL WELLS
HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TIMOTHY JOHN WEST

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD J
SLICER J
BLOW J
28 August 2003

Both respondents pleaded guilty on an indictment that jointly charged them with aggravated burglary and manslaughter on or about 12 July 1997. On 25 June 2003, they were convicted and sentenced on the indictment to four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. To take account of their respective times in custody prior to sentence, Wells' imprisonment was ordered to commence on 3 June 2003 and West's imprisonment was ordered to commence on 22 October 2002. The Attorney-General has appealed against both sentences on the single ground that they were manifestly inadequate. The factual basis for the sentence will first be stated.

The respondents lived in Northern Tasmania. Another man, Alan Jones, who lived at Kingston, told them, some weeks before the crimes, that Mr Wallace Millar, who lived alone at 55 Strickland Avenue, South Hobart, and who was 77 years of age, had a large amount of cash which he kept in a kerosene tin at his home. It was resolved that Jones would tell the respondents when it was expected Mr Millar would be away from his home, whereupon they would break into it and steal the money.

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 Attorney-General (Tas) v Wells

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (Tas) v Wells [2003] TASSC 78
Case: [2003] TASSC 78
Decision Date: 28 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Tas) v Wells, the matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The respondent, Wells, was convicted of manslaughter following an aggravated burglary during which the victim, a householder, was left bound and gagged. The Attorney-General sought a sentence that was deemed more appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the four-year imprisonment term imposed on Wells was manifestly inadequate, warranting an increase to a more suitable tariff. This involved evaluating the nature of the offence, the harm caused to the victim, and the principles of sentencing in relation to manslaughter committed during an aggravated burglary.

The court meticulously examined the sentencing principles applicable to manslaughter, particularly those outlined in the Crimes Act. It was necessary to consider whether the initial sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court assessed the impact of the offence on the victim, the circumstances of the burglary, and the degree of harm caused. It also weighed the mitigating factors presented by the defence, such as the offender's background and potential for rehabilitation, against the severity of the crime and its consequences.

After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the initial sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate in light of the circumstances. It was concluded that the four-year term did not sufficiently account for the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court accordingly exercised its discretion to increase the sentence, setting a new tariff that better reflected the nature of the crime and its repercussions. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences align with the principles of justice, accountability, and public protection.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a new sentence, which was deemed more appropriate in the context of the crime and its impact on the victim. The respondent's sentence was adjusted to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the necessity for an adequate punitive response. This ruling served to reinforce the judiciary's role in ensuring that sentences are commensurate with the crimes committed, thereby maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Orders