Bishop v Tasmania - [2019] TASCCA 21

[2019] TASCCA 21
COURT:       SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:              Bishop v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 21
PARTIES:  BISHOP, Adam James
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:  2349/2019
DELIVERED ON:  26 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 November 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 – Dangerous driving and summary offences including evading police with aggravating circumstances – Offender drove more than 50 kilometres involving multiple instances of danger and high risk – Sentence of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years not manifestly excessive.

Banks v State of Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 1; Director of Public Prosecutions v Brown [2019] TASCCA 11, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
           Appellant:  In person
           Respondent:  J Hartnett
Solicitors:
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number:  [2019] TASCCA 21
Number of paragraphs:  27
Serial No 21/2019
File No CCA 2349/2019

ADAM JAMES BISHOP v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
WOOD J
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
26 November 2019
Order of the Court (13 November 2019)
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 21/2019
File No CCA 2349/2019

ADAM JAMES BISHOP v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
WOOD J
26 November 2019
1For the reasons expressed by Martin AJ, I joined in the order made on 13 November 2019 dismissing this appeal.

File No CCA 2349/2019

ADAM JAMES BISHOP v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
GEASON J
26 November 2019
2I joined in the order dismissing the appeal for the reasons given by Martin AJ. There is nothing I wish to add.

File No CCA 2349/2019

ADAM JAMES BISHOP v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
MARTIN AJ
2019
26 November 2019
Introduction
3The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving contrary to s 172A of the Criminal Code. He also entered pleas of guilty to summary offences of making off without payment, driving while not the holder of a driver's licence, evading police with aggravating circumstances and failing to stop at the scene of a crash, in which he was the driver. Porter AJ imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 3 months for the offence of evading police. For the dangerous driving and other summary offences, his Honour imposed a sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon the first sentence of 3 months. In respect of the total sentence of 3 years and 9 months, his Honour ordered that the appellant be eligible for parole after serving 2 years. In addition, the appellant was disqualified from driving for a period of 3 years commencing at the time of his release from prison.
4The appellant was unrepresented. He prepared his own notice of appeal which contains the single…

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 Bishop v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Bishop v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 21
Case: [2019] TASCCA 21
Decision Date: 26 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bishop appealed against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The appellant had pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving and summary offences, including evading police with aggravating circumstances. The offending involved a pursuit exceeding 50 kilometres and multiple instances of dangerous driving and high-risk conduct.

The appeal concerned whether the sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years, was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing in determining if the Magistrate's decision fell outside the bounds of a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that the Magistrate had properly taken into account all relevant sentencing considerations, including the seriousness of the dangerous driving and the aggravating circumstances of evading police. The extensive distance travelled, the sustained period of high-risk behaviour, and the potential for serious harm were all factors that justified the imposed sentence. The court affirmed that the sentence was not demonstrably outside the range of appropriate sentences for such offending and therefore was not manifestly excessive.

Orders