Bond v Lamprey - [2022] TASSC 4

[2022] TASSC 4

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bond v Lamprey [2022] TASSC 4

PARTIES:  BOND, Luke
  v
  LAMPREY, Tony Reuben

FILE NO:  2505/2021
DELIVERED ON:  8 February 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  15 November 2021, 2 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Grounds that sentence was manifestly inadequate – Sentencing order of magistrate set aside.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Animals – Prevention of cruelty to animals – Offences – Causing unnecessary pain and cruelly ill-treating – Particular cases – Aggravated cruelty to an animal – Reckless as to whether act will or reasonably likely to result in death, deformity or serious disablement of an animal.

Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) ss 8, 9.
Holding v Parkin [2012] WASC 113, 233 A Crim R 532, followed.

Aust Dig Animals [45]

Animals – Protection of fauna and game laws – Offences – Tasmania –Possession of specially protected wildlife without a permit – Trapping of spotted tail quoll.

Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010 (Tas), reg 35.

Aust Dig Animals [65]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  L King-Roberts
             Respondent:  In person
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 4
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 4/2022
File No 2505/2021

CONSTABLE LUKE BOND v TONY REUBEN LAMPREY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

8 February 2022

The respondent was charged with two offences concerning the trapping and death of a spotted tail quoll, which had occurred at his home in Stowport on 14 February 2021. The charges were as follows:
· Taking specially protected wildlife without a permit, contrary to reg 35(1) of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010.
· Aggravated cruelty to an animal, contrary to s 9(1)(a) of the Animal Welfare Act 1993.
On 24 September 2021, he pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced by Magistrate Topfer on a global basis to a fine of $500. It was his first appearance with respect to the complaint, and he was not represented by counsel. The applicant moves this Court to review the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances of the case.
The prosecution facts read to the magistrate were not disputed by the respondent. A few days before the relevant events, the respondent indicated in a Facebook post his intention to trap a spotted tail quoll which had apparently been taking chickens which he kept in an enclosure at his home. On the night of 13 February, he set a trap and also used a grinder to sharpen the end of a length of reinforcing bar, thereby creating a spear.
The spotted tail quoll was trapped during the morning of 14 February. While the animal was still in the trap, the respondent used the makeshift spear to stab it in the head. He then left for work without checking to see if the animal was dead. When he returned…

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 Bond v Lamprey

Details

AGLC: Bond v Lamprey [2022] TASSC 4
Case: [2022] TASSC 4
Decision Date: 8 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bond v Lamprey is an appeal against a sentencing decision made by a magistrate in Tasmania. The appellant, Bond, was convicted of an offence and sentenced by the magistrate. Bond was dissatisfied with the sentence imposed and sought a review of the decision. The primary ground for the review was that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly inadequate. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was excessive, lenient, or otherwise manifestly inappropriate. The court also had to consider whether there were any other grounds for setting aside the sentencing order.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the sentence imposed was insufficient to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also found that there were no other grounds for setting aside the sentencing order. The court set aside the sentencing order and remitted the matter to the magistrate for re-sentencing.

This decision serves as a reminder to magistrates of the importance of imposing appropriate sentences that are consistent with the principles of sentencing. It also highlights the role of the Court of Criminal Appeal in reviewing sentencing decisions and ensuring that justice is served. The decision may have implications for other cases where a sentence is challenged on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.

Orders