CBF v Tasmania - [2021] TASCCA 9

[2021] TASCCA 9

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

CITATION: CBF v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 9

PARTIES:  CBF
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2397/2020
DELIVERED ON:  12 October 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  8 October 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J, Pearce J, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offender – Registration, reporting and like matters – Maximum reporting period for child guilty of reportable offence – Factors relevant to assessment of reporting period.
Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act2005, ss 23, 24 and 25.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3355]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  J Sawyer
             Respondent:  L Mason SC, S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2021] TASCCA 9
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 9/2021
File No 2397/2020

CBF v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
MARTIN AJ
12 October 2021

Orders of the Court:

Appeal allowed;
Order made by sentencing judge on 4 June 2015 under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 varied by substituting a reporting period of 7 years and 6 months from 4 June 2015.

Serial No 9/2021
File No 2397/2020

CBF v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
12 October 2021

Background

The appellant was convicted on 4 June 2015 of one count each of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, attempted rape and attempted murder. He was sentenced to a period of detention and an order to report under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 (the Act) for a period of 10 years (the reporting period).
This appeal against sentence relates only to the order to report, on the basis that the appellant was aged 17 at the time of the offending and was dealt with as a youth, and the reporting period was for a longer period than that authorised by the Act.
Section 24 of the Act provides the maximum periods for which adult offenders can be required to report. Had the appellant been an adult, he could, pursuant to s 24(3), having regard to the offences of which he was convicted, have been required to report for life. However, s 25 of the Act provides that a reduced period of reporting applies to child offenders and the maximum period of time for which the appellant could have been required to report under s 25(3) was 7 years and 6 months.
The respondent concedes that the learned sentencing judge, Blow CJ, erred in law by sentencing the appellant under s 24 of the Act instead of s 25. Accordingly when the appeal first came before the Court on 10 November 2020 the appeal was allowed and leave was granted to the appellant to file any additional information in relation to his psychological or psychiatric condition, together with any…

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 CBF v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: CBF v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 9
Case: [2021] TASCCA 9
Decision Date: 12 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, constituted by Estcourt J, Pearce J, and Martin AJ, considered an appeal concerning the sentencing of a child found guilty of a reportable offence. The dispute centred on the appropriate maximum reporting period to be imposed under the relevant legislation, which governs the registration and reporting obligations for individuals convicted of certain offences.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the factors that a sentencing judge should consider when assessing the maximum reporting period for a child found guilty of a reportable offence. This involved interpreting the provisions of the *Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2002* (Tas) and applying them to the circumstances of a minor offender.

The Court reasoned that while the Act provides for a maximum reporting period, the assessment of this period for a child requires a nuanced approach. It emphasised that the purpose of the reporting obligations is to protect the public, but this must be balanced against the rehabilitative needs and the unique circumstances of a child offender. The Court considered the offender's age, the nature of the offence, the risk of reoffending, and the potential impact of a lengthy reporting period on the child's future rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The Court affirmed that the sentencing judge retains a discretion to impose a reporting period that is just and proportionate, taking into account all relevant factors, including those specific to the offender's age and developmental stage.

Orders