Attorney-General v B - [2010] TASCCA 6

[2010] TASCCA 6

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

CITATION: Attorney-General for Tasmania v B [2010] TASCCA 6

PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR TASMANIA
v

B, K T

FILE NO/S: 693/2008
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: TAD v KTB (2008) 17 Tas R 302, [2008] TASSC 36

DELIVERED ON:  10 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  9 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Evans and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Criminal injuries compensation – Tasmania – Injuries – Evidence and procedure – Documents admissible on application – Whether facts sufficiently appear from evidence and material.

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s68.
R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472 at 477; R v Kneeshaw [1975] QB 57 at 60; R v Braham [1977] VR 104 at 110; Landolt (1992) 63 A Crim R 220 at 223, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3208]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  W A Ayliffe
             Respondent:  R C Mainwaring
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Blissenden Lawyers
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2010] TASCCA 6
Number of paragraphs: 69

Serial No 6/2010
File No 693/2008

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR TASMANIA v K T B

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  EVANS J
  PORTER J
  10 May 2010

Orders of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 2/2010
File No 693/2008

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR TASMANIA v K T B

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  10 May 2010

The appeal was brought from a refusal of a judge to order an offender to pay compensation under the Sentencing Act 1997, s68, to a person who suffered injury as a result of a crime committed by the offender. TAD v KTB (2008) 17 Tas R 302, [2008] TASSC 36.

Originally, the appellant was the person who claimed to have suffered injury. (I will refer to her as the complainant.) However, following realisation that she had no right of appeal, it was ordered that the Attorney-General replace her as the appellant. The Criminal Code, s401(2)(c), gave the Attorney-General the right of appeal.

The criminal proceedings

On 7 August 2007, the respondent pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17 years, who was the complainant. In the course of stating the facts, Crown counsel tendered her victim impact statement. It was the only material the learned judge had concerning the injuries, or any other impact on her, that resulted from the commission of the crime. Counsel for the respondent made a plea in mitigation. On 10 August 2007, a conviction was recorded and the respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The sexual relationship subsisted between 21 February 1972 and 20 August 1975. The complainant was nine years old when it started and 12 years old when it ended.

The commission of the crime was summarised in the comments on passing sentence in the following way. The respondent preyed upon the little girl. He took her shopping and in his car, indecently assaulted her by rubbing her…

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 v B

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v B [2010] TASCCA 6
Case: [2010] TASCCA 6
Decision Date: 10 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney-General appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of a single judge who had awarded criminal injuries compensation to B. The dispute concerned whether the facts necessary to establish B's entitlement to compensation sufficiently appeared from the evidence and material before the court.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the single judge had erred in finding that the facts supporting B's claim for compensation were sufficiently established by the evidence presented. This involved considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by B and the causal link between those injuries and the criminal act alleged.

The Full Court reasoned that the evidence before the single judge, including medical reports and B's own testimony, was sufficient to establish the necessary facts for an award of criminal injuries compensation. The court applied the principles governing the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in criminal injuries compensation claims, holding that the single judge had not made an error of law in their assessment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.