Legal Research
Cases
Brown v Jones

Brown v Jones

Case [2021] TASSC 58 22 November 2021

Appeal

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2021] TASSC 58

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Brown v Jones [2021] TASSC 58

PARTIES:  BROWN, Kent Andrew
  v
  JONES, Jason

FILE NO:  1001/2021
DELIVERED ON:  22 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  15 November 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Porter AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and a new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive – Family violence offence – Assault by pulling hair, choking and punching to legs – Prior conviction for assault but no history of family violence – Complainant supportive – Sentence of three months' imprisonment with two months suspended not manifestly excessive – Relevance of attitude of victim.
Hardwick v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 2, 32 Tas R 62, applied.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Chatters [2011] TASCCA 8, 21 Tas R 26; Menichelli v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 111, 19 Tas R 299, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  G Tucker
             Respondent:  E Belonogoff
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Grant Tucker
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 58
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 58/2021
File No 1001/2021

KENT ANDREW BROWN v SERGEANT JASON JONES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PORTER AJ

22 November 2021

Introduction

This is a motion to review a sentencing order. On 13 July 2021 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of assault under the Police Offences Act 1935. He also pleaded guilty to four "storage" offences under the Firearms Act 1995, and the matters were adjourned for sentence to 16 July 2021. The assault was a family violence offence. The victim was the applicant's partner of some six years. On the assault charge he was sentenced by Magistrate Brown to three months' imprisonment the execution of two months of which was suspended on condition he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months. He was fined in respect of the firearms offences.
The motion to review only relates to the assault charge. The sole ground in the notice to review is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. At the hearing of the motion on 16 November 2021 I dismissed it, and said I would later publish reasons. These are those reasons.

The course of the proceedings

It is relevant to set out what has occurred in relation to the hearing of the complaint. The incident that led to all matters of complaint happened on 16 February 2021. The complaint was filed on 15 March 2021 and the applicant's first appearance was on 23 March 2021 when, unrepresented, he pleaded guilty before a different magistrate. That magistrate ordered a pre-sentence report and adjourned the matter to 4 May 2021.
At that time the applicant was represented and a plea in mitigation was made. A sentence was immediately passed, with the applicant being sentenced on the whole of the complaint to four months' imprisonment the execution of two months of which was suspended on condition he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for…

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 Brown v Jones

Details

AGLC: Brown v Jones [2021] TASSC 58
Case: [2021] TASSC 58
Decision Date: 22 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brown v Jones, the defendant appealed against his sentence for assaulting the complainant by pulling her hair, choking her, and punching her legs. The case was heard by the court of appeal in Australia. The defendant argued that the sentence of three months' imprisonment, with two months suspended, was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The complainant had a supportive attitude towards the defendant, and the defendant had no prior history of family violence, despite having a previous conviction for assault.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the supportive attitude of the complainant should be taken into account. The court also had to consider the defendant's previous conviction for assault and the nature of the offence. The court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to family violence offences and the factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, despite the defendant's previous conviction for assault. The court noted that the complainant's supportive attitude towards the defendant was a relevant consideration, but it was not the only factor to be taken into account. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar behaviour. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders.

Orders