Causon v Tasmania - [2021] TASCCA 13

[2021] TASCCA 13

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Causon v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 13
PARTIES:	CAUSON, Tyler
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 2422/2020
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	22 April 2021
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J, Geason J, Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate

– Aggravated burglary and stealing – Sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with partial suspension not

manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Parity between

co-offenders.

Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49, 244 CLR 462, Colbran v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 14, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3522]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: R Mainwaring
Respondent: H Denton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tasmania Legal Aid
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2021] TASCCA 13
Number of paragraphs:	43

Serial No 13/2021

File No CCA 2422/2020

TYLER CAUSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BRETT J GEASON J MARSHALL AJ 16 December 2021
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 13/2021

File No CCA 2422/2020

TYLER CAUSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BRETT J
16 December 2021

1 I agree with Marshall AJ that this appeal should be dismissed.
2 The first ground asserts manifest excess. In my opinion, there is no merit in this assertion. The criminal conduct for which the appellant was to be sentenced was objectively serious. The aggravated burglary involved a group of young men breaking into a residential home during the day, for the purpose of stealing property from it. The crime involved a serious intrusion into the privacy and sense of security which is the legitimate expectation of the home owner. Further, although on this occasion, the house was empty, there must always, with such a crime, be a risk of confrontation between an occupant who is or comes home during the burglary. Community protection and general deterrence are important sentencing considerations in respect of the crime of aggravated burglary.
3 Counsel for the appellant did not suggest that the offences were not objectively serious, but pointed out that in the usual course, and having regard to the aggregate value of the stolen property, they would be dealt with as summary offences in the Magistrates Court. In fact, under s 71 of the Justices Act 1959, because the stealing related to property with an aggregate value of less than $5,000, it was deemed to be a simple offence, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to deal with it. The aggravated burglary was also deemed to be a simple offence unless the appellant elected to have the matter dealt with on indictment: s 72 of the Justices Act. Counsel has pointed out that neither offence was dealt with by…

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 Causon v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Causon v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 13
Case: [2021] TASCCA 13
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Causon, appealed against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a partial suspension imposed by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania for charges of aggravated burglary and stealing. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying appellate intervention. The Court was required to consider the principles of sentencing in Tasmania, including the gravity of the offences, the circumstances of the offending, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Court reviewed the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing and considered the submissions of both the applicant and the Crown. It applied established sentencing principles, weighing the aggravating factors of the offences against any mitigating factors. The Court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive and that there were no grounds to interfere with the exercise of the Magistrate's discretion.

Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders