Bone v The Queen Summary

Serial No B50/1987
List "B"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bone v R [1987] TASSC 120; B50/1987

PARTIES:  BONE
  v
  R

FILE NO/S:  LCA 107/1987
DELIVERED ON:  20 November 1987
JUDGMENT OF:  Neasey J

Judgment Number: B50/1987
Number of paragraphs: 1

Serial No B50/1987
List "B"
File No LCA 107/1987

BONE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NEASEY J

20 November 1987

This motion to review was heard together with that concerning the applicant Robert Devine. The circumstances in which the two men escaped whilst being part of a working party at the Hobart Botanical Gardens has been set out in the judgment dealing with Devine's case, to which reference is made. The only way in which Bone's case differs from Devine's is in respect of his previous record of offences. He is a man in the same age bracket as Devine, that is, in the 30s, and like Devine he has a long record of previous offences. Devine's record, however, contains some crimes of violence; which Bone's does not. Devine, also, was serving a longer period of imprisonment at the time of escape than Bone was. However, these differences do not provide a proper basis for discriminating between the two men in respect of sentence. Virtually all of the applicable factors relating to the gravity of the offence, set out in the judgment dealing with Devine, apply also to Bone. That being so the course I shall take will be the same in Bone's case. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed by the learned magistrate will be quashed, and a sentence of six months' imprisonment imposed in lieu thereof.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Bone v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, Bone, following his escape from a working party at the Hobart Botanical Gardens. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was appropriate, given the circumstances of the escape and Bone's criminal history. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence should be reviewed in light of the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to the offence and Bone's background.

Justice Neasey, in delivering the judgment, considered the gravity of the offence, which involved Bone's escape from lawful custody while participating in a working party. The court found that the applicable factors relating to the seriousness of the offence, as outlined in the judgment concerning the co-accused, Robert Devine, were largely similar to those in Bone's case. Despite differences in their criminal histories, the court determined that these distinctions did not warrant a significant variation in sentencing between the two individuals. Justice Neasey concluded that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was excessive and did not adequately reflect the nature of the offence or the appropriate punishment for such a crime.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was quashed. In its place, the Supreme Court imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, which the court deemed to be more commensurate with the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing principles. This decision underscores the importance of consistent and proportionate sentencing in similar cases involving escape from lawful custody.

Bone v The Queen

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established