Legal Research
Cases
Auton v Tasmania

Auton v Tasmania

Case [2019] TASCCA 17 8 November 2019

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2019] TASCCA 17

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

CITATION: Auton v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 17

PARTIES:  AUTON, Joseph Edward
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  958/2019
DELIVERED ON:  8 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  22 August 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J, Geason J, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Ill-treating a child – Three and a half year old with Autism Spectrum Disorder – Offender assumed a "disciplining" role while in a relationship with child’s mother – Multiple incidents of ill-treatment over a 3 week period – Child suffered multiple injuries and was subjected to repeated beatings, his mouth or hands taped with duct tape, and on one occasion he was placed naked inside a drum with tap running over his head – 24 year old offender with no prior convictions for violence – Plea of guilty – Significant mental health difficulties including major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder complicated by illicit and prescription drug use – Sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  Unrepresented
             Respondent:  D Coates SC
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASCCA 17
Number of paragraphs: 74

Serial No 17/2019
File No CCA 958/2019

JOSEPH EDWARD AUTON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
8 November 2019

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 17/2019
File No CCA 958/2019

JOSEPH EDWARD AUTON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
8 November 2019

I agree with the reasons of Martin AJ and his Honour's comprehensive consideration of the issues raised by this appeal. One of the submissions made by the appellant was that the sentence of imprisonment he received of three and a half years, and that he not be eligible for parole until he has served two years, was excessive having regard to other sentences imposed in this jurisdiction for the crime of ill-treating a child contrary to s 178(1) of the Criminal Code. I agree with his Honour's consideration of this complaint at [66] and wish to add some comments regarding the appellant's submissions on this point and the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The respondent provided this Court with a summary of sentences imposed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania since 1989. The summary refers to 44 sentences, eight in the last 10 years. The facts of the cases are disparate in terms of the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the offender, and there are not enough cases of a similar kind to provide a sentencing pattern for classes of similar cases. As noted by Underwood J (as he then was) in P v Tasmania(No…

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 Auton v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Auton v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 17
Case: [2019] TASCCA 17
Decision Date: 8 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on a 24-year-old offender, Auton, who pleaded guilty to charges of ill-treating a three-and-a-half-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The incidents of ill-treatment occurred over a three-week period and included multiple injuries, duct taping of the child's mouth and hands, and immersion in a drum with running water over his head. The appeal was heard by Wood J, Geason J, and Martin AJ.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the child victim, the offender's background, including his lack of prior convictions for violence, and his significant mental health difficulties complicated by drug use.

The court reasoned that while the offender's youth, lack of prior convictions, and mental health issues were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the severity of the offences. The repeated and prolonged nature of the ill-treatment, the extreme vulnerability of the child due to his age and disability, and the nature of the injuries inflicted were significant aggravating factors. The court applied the principles of sentencing, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and concluded that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not demonstrably wrong or unjust.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders