Legal Research
Cases
Barron v Tasmania

Barron v Tasmania

Case [2010] TASCCA 3 25 March 2010

Type to search within this case.

[2010] TASCCA 3

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

CITATION: Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3

PARTIES:  BARRON, Anthony Richard Neil
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S:  CCA 151/2009
DELIVERED ON:  25 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  12 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – General range of sentences for a single count of causing grievous bodily harm.

Criminal Code (Tas), s172.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  A J Hall
             Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  C N Dockray
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2010] TASCCA 3
Number of paragraphs: 53

Serial No 3/2010
File No CCA 151/2009

ANTHONY RICHARD NEIL BARRON v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
PORTER J
WOOD J
25 March 2010

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 3/2010
File No CCA 151/2009

ANTHONY RICHARD NEIL BARRON v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
25 March 2010

In my view this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons stated by Wood J.

File No CCA 151/2009

ANTHONY RICHARD NEIL BARRON v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PORTER J
25 March 2010

I agree that for the reasons given by Wood J, the appeal should be dismissed.

File No CCA 151/2009

ANTHONY RICHARD NEIL BARRON v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
25 March 2010

After a trial held in Launceston, the appellant was found guilty of the crime of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code, s172. On 12 February 2009, the appellant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and it was ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served two years and nine months of the imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence on the sole ground that five years' imprisonment is manifestly excessive.

The original charge on indictment against the appellant was the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, contrary to the Code, s170. The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty in relation to that crime, but found the appellant guilty of the alternative crime under the Code, s172, which does not require a specific intent to cause bodily harm. The distinction between the two crimes assumed some significance in the submissions on appeal and will be returned to later.

The criminal conduct

The trial judge's comments on passing sentence contain pertinent facts of the crime committed by the appellant. The background to the crime was set out, together with details of the criminal conduct:

"On 12 April 2008 he picked up his friend, a man aged 42, and took him to a house at Beaconsfield to look at some cars for spare parts. They stayed for a…

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 Barron v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3
Case: [2010] TASCCA 3
Decision Date: 25 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the respondent, Barron, for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant was the State of Tasmania. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference by the appellate court. This required the Court to consider the general range of sentences applicable to a single count of causing grievous bodily harm.

The Court considered the circumstances of the offence and the respondent's personal factors. Applying established principles of sentencing, the Court determined that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision.

Consequently, the appeal was 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth [2010] TASCCA 10

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Harwood (No 2)
[2019] TASCCA 13 Para 8

…o cases which have been previously dealt with by this Court, at the more serious end of the range, head sentences of imprisonment of 5 years ( Barron [2010] TASCCA 3) and 6 years ( Cordwell [2017] TASCCA 14), were held to not demonstrate manifest excess. On the other hand, in DPP v Pearce , the Court rejected a pr…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Greely
[2019] TASCCA 10 Para 1

…There is no tariff for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s172 of the Code. In Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 Wood J, with whom Blow and Porter JJ agreed, said at [27]-[29]: "27 In this appeal there has been reliance on comparative sentences by both counsel to support their contentions that i…
Lee v Tasmania
[2020] TASCCA 6 Para 2

…nge: Inkson v The Queen (1996) 6 Tas R 1, per Underwood J (as he then was) at 15; R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112, per Wright J at [14]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3, 20 Tas R 114, per Wood J at [28]-[30]; Groenewege v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 7 at [50]; Cordwell v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 14, per Estcourt J at [17]-[…
Butt v Tasmania
[2018] TASCCA 3 Para 1

…h imprisonment that actions have consequences. In determining the appropriate sentence, I will rely on Cordwell v State of Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 14, Barron v Tasmania (2010) 20 Tas R 114, Inkson (1996) 6 Tas R 1, and the material in Sentencing in Tasmania, Warner, 2nd ed, 11.304-11.310, Tables 6 and 7. In the present case…
Maddox v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 25 Para 23

…bodily harm, contrary to s 172, which does not necessarily involve a specific intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3, 20 Tas R 114 at [21]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth [2010] TASCCA 10 at [8]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Blackaby [2013] TASCCA 4 at…
Cordwell v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 14 Para 1

…s worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].'"…
Kirkwood v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 7 Para 9

…ious injury to her health. Sentences for crimes contrary to s 170 have been reviewed in a number of recent decisions of this Court: Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3, Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth [2010] TASCCA 10; Director of Public Prosecutions v Rogers [2011] TASCCA 17; Director of Public Prosecutions…
Price v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 22 Para 6

…s worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].'"…
Jay v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 12 Para 1

…s worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].'"…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Blackaby
[2013] TASCCA 4

…s worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21]."…
Wahl v Tasmania
[2012] TASCCA 5 Para 1

…btain a conviction pursuant to s170, a conviction for the latter is generally regarded as worse although this is not invariably so; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 [22]. Again, a conviction for a breach of s172 would generally be regarded as worse than a conviction for s167B. Consistent with this view, Crawford…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth
[2010] TASCCA 10 Para 1

…as worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par[2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Mabb v Tasmania
[2008] TASSC 22 Para 1

…mind that a number of the sentences in the table attracted a discount for an early plea of guilty (the point was made by Evans J in Mabb v Tasmania [2008] TASSC 22 at par7).…
Clark v Tasmania
[2006] TASSC 61 Para 1

…of causing grievous bodily harm. Of particular relevance are four decisions of Mansell & Anor v R (supra), Inkson (1996) 6 Tas R 1, Clark v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 61 and Mabb v Tasmania (supra).…
Mansell v The Queen
[2001] TASSC 73 Para 1

…e two crimes for sentencing purposes is that a crime against s170 is generally treated as worse than one against s172 of the Code: Mansell & Anor v R [2001] TASSC 73, per Cox CJ, at par7. The distinction in the categories of these crimes seems to be reflected in the sentences imposed for serious cases. Sentences f…
R v Allen
[1999] TASSC 112 Para 1

…ett [1990] Tas R 72). By contrast an essential element of a crime against s170 is the intention to cause some kind of serious bodily harm ( R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112, per Cox CJ at par2).…
Deakin v The Queen
[1984] HCA 31 Para 1

…ime that the sentencer determines justice requires that the offender must serve having regard to all the circumstances of the offence: see Deakin v R (1984) 58 ALJR 367 and Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 629."…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 1

…hen sentencing for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s172, the sentencing judge may, without offending the principle in De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, sentence on the basis that the offender had an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. An exception to that usual situation is where the jury has f…
Power v The Queen
[1974] HCA 26 Para 1

…justice requires that the offender must serve having regard to all the circumstances of the offence: see Deakin v R (1984) 58 ALJR 367 and Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 629."…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.