Bell v Tasmania - [2019] TASCCA 14

[2019] TASCCA 14

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

CITATION: Bell v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 14

PARTIES:  BELL, Robert John
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 216/2019
DELIVERED ON:  11 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  20 August 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Geason J and Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Assault, stealing and wounding – Two incidents – Partner's fingers jammed in door and neck attacked with taser – Woman stabbed to hand when protecting stomach – Global sentence of 4 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 2½ years not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M Truong
             Respondent:  A Shand
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASCCA 14
Number of paragraphs: 51

Serial No 14/2019
File No CCA 216/2019

ROBERT JOHN BELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
11 September 2019

Order of the Court (20 August 2019)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 14/2019
File No CCA 216/2019

ROBERT JOHN BELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
11 September 2019

This is a sentencing appeal. The appellant pleaded guilty to charges of assault, stealing and wounding. Wood J convicted him, imposed a global sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, and ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served 2½ years of that sentence. She also made a community corrections order requiring supervision for 2 years after his release from prison. The appellant filed a notice of appeal, contending that the penalty imposed by each of the sentencing orders was manifestly excessive.
At the hearing of the appeal, his counsel applied to amend the grounds of appeal so as to introduce other contentions. That application was refused, for reasons that were stated during the hearing and need not be repeated. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date.
I have read the reasons for judgment of Martin AJ in draft form. I joined in the dismissal of the appeal for all of the reasons stated by him.
I wish to add a little about the non-parole period of 2½ years. A non-parole period may not be less than one half of the period of the head sentence: Sentencing Act 1997, s 17(3). A non-parole period should be "the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he [the offender] must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence": Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 per Barwick CJ, Menzies, Stephen and Mason JJ at 629. It was reasonably open to the learned sentencing judge to impose the non-parole period of 2½ years, which was five eighths of the head sentence, in this case,…

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 Bell v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Bell v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 14
Case: [2019] TASCCA 14
Decision Date: 11 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to charges of assault, stealing, and wounding arising from two separate incidents involving his partner. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Geason J, and Martin AJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the global sentence of four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two and a half years, was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal.

The court considered the nature and severity of the offences, which included jamming the victim's fingers in a door, attacking her neck with a taser, and stabbing her hand as she attempted to protect her stomach. The judges applied the principles governing appeals against sentence, focusing on whether the sentencing judge had erred in principle or imposed a sentence that was outside the available range of appropriate sentences. After reviewing the facts and the sentencing remarks, the Full Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and reflected a proper consideration of the gravity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders