Chilcott v De Wit - [2022] TASSC 60

[2022] TASSC 60

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Chilcott v De Wit [2022] TASSC 60
PARTIES:	CHILCOTT, Megan Jane
v
DE WIT, Michael
FILE NO/S:	1218/2022
DELIVERED ON:	3 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:	23 September 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Plea of guilty supplying a controlled drug and unlawfully bringing unauthorised articles into a prison – Smuggling illicit drugs into prison – Sentence of imprisonment for ten months with six months suspended not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Hardship – To others – Offender with sole care of young

autistic child.

The Queen v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291; McAree v Barr [2006] TASSC 37; Markovic v R [2010] VSCA 105,
30 VR 589, referred to.
Wilkie v Cohen [2016] TASSC 14, 24 Tas R 227; Adams (a Pseudonym) v R [2022] SASCA 47, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3306]

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing procedure – Approach to sentencing process – Generally – Procedural fairness – Court not obliged to raise home detention order as alternative possible sentence – No unfairness established.

Allen v Kerr [2009] TASSC 10, 19 Tas R 132, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3306]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: F McCracken
Respondent: M Hills

Solicitors:

Appellant: Grant Tucker
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASSC 60
Number of paragraphs:	31

Serial No 60/2022 File No 1218/2022

MEGAN JANE CHILCOTT v MICHAEL DE WIT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
3 October 2022

1             The applicant moves this Court to review a sentence imposed on her by a magistrate, Ms S Cure, on 26 April 2022. The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying a controlled drug contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s 26, one count of unlawfully bringing unauthorised articles into a prison contrary to the Corrections Act 1997, s 24(1), and one count of possessing a controlled drug contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act, s 24. She was sentenced to imprisonment for ten months, six months of which was suspended for two years from her release.
2             There are two grounds of appeal. The first ground is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The second ground asserts that the learned magistrate erred by "failing to allow the applicant to be heard on alternative sentencing options such as home detention orders."
3   For the following reasons neither ground of appeal is made out and the motion will be
dismissed.

The circumstances of the offending

4 On 29 January 2021 the applicant, who lived in the north of the State, went to the Risdon Prison to visit an inmate. The person the applicant was visiting was a long term friend with whom she had more recently formed a romantic relationship. I will refer to him…

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 Chilcott v De Wit

Details

AGLC: Chilcott v De Wit [2022] TASSC 60
Case: [2022] TASSC 60
Decision Date: 3 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chilcott v De Wit, the appellant, Mr. Chilcott, was convicted of supplying a controlled drug and unlawfully bringing unauthorised articles into a prison. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. Mr. Chilcott was found guilty of smuggling illicit drugs into the prison where he was incarcerated. He was sentenced to ten months in prison, with six months of this sentence suspended. Dissatisfied with the sentence, Mr. Chilcott filed a motion to review the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Mr. Chilcott was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the nature of the offences, the sentencing principles applicable to such cases, and the appropriate punishment given the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there were any procedural errors in the original sentencing hearing that warranted a review of the sentence.

In delivering the decision, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences committed by Mr. Chilcott. However, it noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties typically meted out for such crimes. The court also found no procedural errors in the original sentencing hearing. As a result, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and denied the motion to review. The sentence of ten months in prison, with six months suspended, was upheld.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed, and Mr. Chilcott's motion to review was dismissed.

Orders