Legal Research
Cases
Bartle v Tasmania

Bartle v Tasmania

Case [2016] TASCCA 18 11 October 2016

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2016] TASCCA 18

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

CITATION: Bartle v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 18

PARTIES:  BARTLE, Stewart
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 1174/2016
DELIVERED ON:  11 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26 September 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Pearce and Brett JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Appellant alleging sentence manifestly excessive – Pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery – Robbery of pharmacy using knife – Sentence of three years' imprisonment with parole eligibility after half not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 402(4).
Streets v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 13, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R Fisher
             Respondent:  J Dennison
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 18
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 18/2016
File No CCA 1174/2016

STEWART BARTLE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
PEARCE J
BRETT J
11 October 2016

Order of the Court (26 September 2016)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 18/2016
File No CCA 1174/2016

STEWART BARTLE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
11 October 2016

The appellant, Stewart Bartle, was sentenced in April 2016 to three years' imprisonment on a charge of armed robbery, with a non-parole period of 18 months. He appealed to this Court against that sentence. On 26 September 2016 this Court heard and dismissed his appeal, deferring the publication of the reasons for its dismissal until a later date. My reasons for joining in the order dismissing the appeal correspond with those stated by Brett J.

File No CCA 1174/2016

STEWART BARTLE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
11 October 2016

I agree with Brett J. My reasons for joining in the order dismissing the appeal are the same as those given by his Honour.

File No CCA 1174/2016

STEWART BARTLE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BRETT J
11 October 2016

At 7.02pm on Friday, 30 October 2015, the appellant committed an armed robbery of a pharmacy in the Kingston Shopping Centre. He was arrested by police for the crime later that night and pleaded guilty to a charge of armed robbery in the Magistrates Court less than one month later. He was sentenced by Tennent J on 21 April 2016 to three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. Her Honour also made a probation order for a period of 12 months, to commence on the appellant's release from custody.
The appellant has appealed to this Court against that sentence. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.
The appeal was heard by this Court on 26 September 2016. After hearing from the appellant's…

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 Bartle v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Bartle v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 18
Case: [2016] TASCCA 18
Decision Date: 11 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bartle appealed against a sentence of three years' imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving half the term, imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following a guilty plea to one count of armed robbery. The robbery involved the appellant using a knife to steal from a pharmacy.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying interference on appeal.

The Court considered the nature of the offence, which involved the use of a weapon during the commission of a robbery, and the appellant's guilty plea. Applying established principles for reviewing sentences, the Court determined that the sentence was not outside the bounds of what was appropriate for the gravity of the offence and the circumstances. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the relevant factors.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was upheld.

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

Bartle v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 18

Most Recent Citation

Tasmania v Joseph [2017] TASSC 23

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Armstrong v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 18 Para 1

…In Bartle v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 18, a case of armed robbery, Brett J said at [22]: "22 In Streets v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 13, Pearce J (with whom Tennent and Wood JJ agreed) reviewed a number of authorities relevant to sentencing for aggravated armed robbery. It is apparent that many of his Honour's comments ar…
Tasmania v Joseph
[2017] TASSC 23 Para 16

…tation to distinguish between psychiatric and physical injury for the purposes of this provision. As I said in the case of Bartel v State of Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 18: "Armed robbery is a crime against people, notwithstanding that it also involves property. By definition, it involved threatened or actual violence.…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Streets v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 13 Para 1

…In Streets v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 13, Pearce J (with whom Tennent and Wood JJ agreed) reviewed a number of authorities relevant to sentencing for aggravated armed robbery. It is apparent that many of his Honour's comments are apposite to the offence of armed robbery. It is convenient to set out his Honour's comme…
Daley v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 10 Para 3

…In respect of the relevance of the cases referred to by counsel, I pointed out in Daley v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 10 at [42] that there is generally little to be gained by an exercise which simply compares one case with another, with a view to attempting to draw a conclusion with respect to comparative leniency or h…
Connelly v Tasmania
[2015] TASCCA 15 Para 4

…s can be established (see Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, 242 CLR 520; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2, 253 CLR 58 at [40]-[41]; Connelly v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 15). It is doubtful that past sentencing in Tasmania for armed robbery has established a tariff (see Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TAS…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2 Para 4

…o be discerned, or to determine whether a range of sentences can be established (see Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, 242 CLR 520; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2, 253 CLR 58 at [40]-[41]; Connelly v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 15). It is doubtful that past sentencing in Tasmania for armed robbery has established a…
Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS
[2013] TASCCA 10 Para 1

…nia [2012] TASCCA 1; DPP v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5 and Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. In Braslin and Cowen , a case referred to by the sentencing judge, Porter J reviewed the range of sentences for aggravated armed robbery and armed r…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris
[2013] TASCCA 5 Para 1

…in and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1; Crosswell v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 1; DPP v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5 and Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. In Braslin and Cowen , a case referred to by the sentencing judge, Porter J reviewed the…
DPP v Burns
[2012] TASCCA 11 Para 1

…subject of a number of recent appeals to this Court: Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1; Crosswell v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 1; DPP v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5 and Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. In Braslin and Cowen , a case r…
Crosswell v Tasmania
[2012] TASCCA 1 Para 1

…d armed robbery have been the subject of a number of recent appeals to this Court: Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1; Crosswell v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 1; DPP v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5 and Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. I…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 4

…elevant in order to enable unifying principles to be discerned, or to determine whether a range of sentences can be established (see Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, 242 CLR 520; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2, 253 CLR 58 at [40]-[41]; Connelly v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 15). It is doubtful that past sentencing i…
Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania
[2010] TASCCA 1 Para 1

…tences for armed robbery and aggravated armed robbery have been the subject of a number of recent appeals to this Court: Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1; Crosswell v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 1; DPP v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5 and Director of Public…
R v Tait
[1936] HCA 62 Para 4

…en was) at 204). The existence of premeditation emphasises the weight to be placed on general deterrence and denunciation (see R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473).…
[1993] TASSC 161
[1993] TASSC 161 Para 1

…nour's comments, at [12]-[13], in full: "This Court has repeatedly emphasised the seriousness of the crime of aggravated armed robbery: R v McFarlane [1993] TASSC 161, 2 Tas R 201 per Crawford J (as he then was) at 210 and Zeeman J at 221; Walsh v The Queen [1996] TASSC 59, 6 Tas R 70 per Wright J at 86. It calls f…
R v Everett and Phillips
[1994] TASSC 39 Para 1

…hose who may be minded to commit such crimes that they will be visited with immediate and substantial terms of imprisonment: R v Everett and Phillips [1994] TASSC 39, 72 A Crim R 422 at 427 per Zeeman J at 441. Sentences for armed robbery and aggravated armed robbery have been the subject of a number of recent app…
Walsh v The Queen
[1996] TASSC 59 Para 1

…f aggravated armed robbery: R v McFarlane [1993] TASSC 161, 2 Tas R 201 per Crawford J (as he then was) at 210 and Zeeman J at 221; Walsh v The Queen [1996] TASSC 59, 6 Tas R 70 per Wright J at 86. It calls for a sentence of deterrence, both general and personal, and denunciation: McFarlane per Cox J (as he then w…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.