Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

[2010] TASCCA 1

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

CITATION:        Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1

PARTIES:  BRASLIN, Corey Wayne
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

COWEN, Leigh Kevin
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

FILE NO/S:  CCA 163/2009

CCA 172/2009

DELIVERED ON:  28 January 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 October 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans, Tennent and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Nature and circumstances of offender – Age of offender – Young offender – Importance of youthfulness and rehabilitation where youthful offender behaves as an adult in committing a serious crime.

R v Tran (2002) 4 VR 457; KT v R (2008) 182 A Crim R 571, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3260]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Aggravated armed robbery involving the use of a stolen vehicle subsequently destroyed by fire – Whether particular sentences of imprisonment manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             First Appellant:  P A Warmbrunn
             Second Appellant:  K Baumeler
             Respondent:  J Hartnett
Solicitors:
             Second Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2010] TASCCA 1
Number of paragraphs:  38

Serial No 1/2010
File Nos CCA 163/2009

CCA 172/2009

COREY WAYNE BRASLIN v STATE OF TASMANIA
LEIGH KEVIN COWEN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

EVANS J
TENNENT J
PORTER J
28 January 2010

Orders of the Court

Appeals dismissed.

Serial No 1/2010
File Nos CCA 163/2009

CCA 172/2009

COREY WAYNE BRASLIN v STATE OF TASMANIA
LEIGH KEVIN COWEN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

EVANS J
28 January 2010

  1. I have read the draft reasons of Porter J.  I agree with those reasons and would also dismiss both appeals.

    Serial No 1/2010
    File Nos CCA 163/2009

    CCA 172/2009

COREY WAYNE BRASLIN v STATE OF TASMANIA
LEIGH KEVIN COWEN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
28 January 2010

  1. I have read the draft reasons of Porter J.  I agree with those reasons and the outcome he proposes.  I would also dismiss both appeals.

    Serial No 1/2010
    File Nos CCA 163/2009

    CCA 172/2009

COREY WAYNE BRASLIN v STATE OF TASMANIA
LEIGH KEVIN COWEN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PORTER J
28 January 2010

The appeals

  1. Following a joint trial, each appellant was found guilty by a jury of stealing, aggravated armed robbery, and unlawfully setting fire to property.  In company with another man, they stole a car, used it in a robbery of a hotel gaming area, and then burnt the car before fleeing in Mr Cowen's car.  On 19 February 2009 Mr Braslin was sentenced to four years' imprisonment to take effect from 1 July 2008, and it was ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served one half of that sentence.  On the same…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] TASCCA 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Braslin and Cowen appealed against sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following their convictions for aggravated armed robbery. The robbery involved the use of a stolen vehicle, which was subsequently destroyed by fire.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the offenders' youthfulness and the potential for rehabilitation, contrasted with the seriousness of the crime committed.

The Court acknowledged the principle that youthfulness is a significant factor in sentencing, generally favouring rehabilitation. However, it also recognised that where a young offender behaves as an adult in committing a serious crime, this mitigating factor may be outweighed by the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The Court considered the specific circumstances of the aggravated armed robbery, including the use of a stolen vehicle and its subsequent destruction, in assessing the overall culpability of the appellants. The Court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors.

The appeals were dismissed.

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.