SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:
Brennan v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 7
PARTIES:
BRENNAN, Jacob Michael
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
ROTHWELL, William Adair
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v ROTHWELL, William Adair
FILE NOS:
CCA 638/2020
CCA 1001/2020 CCA 3058/2020
DELIVERED ON:
21 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Hobart
HEARING DATE:
11 November 2020, 6 June 2021
JUDGMENT OF:
Blow CJ, Wood J, Martin AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Murder – Premeditated intentional vicious killing by two youths aged 17 – Sentence of 26 years' imprisonment with non-parole periods of 15 years not manifestly
excessive.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Fresh evidence and events occurring after sentence – Failure to fulfil promise to co-operate and give evidence against
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v WILLIAM ADAIR ROTHWELL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BLOW CJ WOOD J (dissenting as to 2 appeals) MARTIN AJ 21 June 2022
Orders of the Court
Appeal 638/2020
Appeal dismissed.
Appeal 1001/2020
Appeal dismissed.
Appeal 3058/2020
1 Time for appeal extended to 22 December 2020.
2 Appeal allowed.
3 Respondent's sentence varied by increasing the parole ineligibility period to 17 years commencing on 16 August 2019.
Serial No 7/2022 File Nos CCA 638/2020
CCA 1001/2020 CCA 3058/2020
JACOB MICHAEL BRENNAN v STATE OF TASMANIA
WILLIAM ADAIR ROTHWELL v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v WILLIAM ADAIR ROTHWELL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BLOW CJ 21 June 2022
1 I agree with the orders proposed by Martin AJ in relation to all three appeals, and with his
Honour's reasons.
2 I agree with all the statements of principle in the reasons of Wood J. The appellants' contentions that their non-parole periods were manifestly excessive call for a value judgment based on the facts of the case and well settled legal principles. Like Martin AJ, and unlike Wood J, I have concluded that the non-parole periods were not manifestly excessive. I acknowledge however that…
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 Brennan v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Brennan v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 7
Case
[2022] TASCCA 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Brennan v Tasmania* concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, who was one of two youths aged 17 at the time of the offence. The appellant had been convicted of murder, a premeditated and vicious killing, and sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.
The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby providing grounds for interference on appeal.
The Court considered the gravity of the offence, noting the premeditated and vicious nature of the killing perpetrated by two young offenders. After reviewing the relevant sentencing principles and authorities, the Court concluded that the sentence of 26 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.