Baldock v Tasmania

[2015] TASCCA 3

[2015] TASCCA 3

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

CITATION:                 Baldock v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 3

PARTIES:  BALDOCK, Philip Kevin
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1277/2013
DELIVERED ON:  20 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11 November 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent, Estcourt and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Offender asserts manifest excessiveness – Plea of guilty to one count of rape and one count of aggravated burglary – Whether sentence of nine years' imprisonment with non-parole period of five and a half years manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Sexual offences – Sentence – Rape and sexual assault – Single count of rape.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2272]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T Jago SC
             Respondent:  L Mason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2015] TASCCA 3
Number of paragraphs:  32

Serial No 3/2015

File No 1277/2013

PHILIP KEVIN BALDOCK v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
20 February 2015

Orders:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Order that appellant serve a period of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and half years is quashed.

3. In lieu it is ordered that the appellant serve a period of six years' imprisonment to commence from 12 July 2013 and that he not be eligible for parole until he has served four years of that sentence.

Serial No 3/2015

File No 1277/2015

PHILIP KEVIN BALDOCK v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
20 February 2015

1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the reasons of Estcourt J in this appeal. In substance, I agree with those reasons and the outcome he proposes. However, I would add some further remarks.

2. On 11 December 2013, Phillip Baldock ("the appellant") was sentenced on his plea of guilty in respect of one count of rape contrary to the Criminal Code, s 184, and one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 245. He was ordered to serve nine years' imprisonment with effect from 12 July 2013. It was also ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served five and a half years of that sentence. At the same time, the appellant was dealt with for a breach of a suspended sentence. The Court ordered that the 12-month suspended sentence be activated and that, of that 12 months, six months be served concurrently with the nine-year sentence already imposed. The net result was a likely six years of actual imprisonment.

3. There was no direct challenge to the order relating to the suspended sentence. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years was manifestly…