CJP v Tasmania - [2015] TASCCA 9

[2015] TASCCA 9

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

CITATION: CJP v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 9

PARTIES:  CJP
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1280/2013
DELIVERED ON:  15 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 March 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Tennent and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Sexual crimes against children aged 4 and 7 years – Sentence of six years' imprisonment with parole ineligibility for three years.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R Mainwaring
             Respondent:  Y Prenc
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASCCA 9
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 9/2015
File No 1280/2013

CJP v SATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
TENNENT J
PEARCE J
15 May 2015

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 9/2015
File No 1280/2013

CJP v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
15 May 2015

I agree with Tennent J that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons stated by her.
For the crimes that the appellant committed, the sentence of six years' imprisonment, with a parole ineligibility period of three years, is certainly a heavy sentence by current Tasmanian standards. However I do not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. It may be that the time has come for consideration to be given to the imposition of longer sentences in this State for serious sexual crimes. According to a research paper published by the Sentencing Advisory Council in April 2013, sentencing levels in Tasmanian courts for sexual offences are lower than they are in other Australian jurisdictions: "Sex Offence Sentencing – Research Paper", at 37.
File No 1280/2013

CJP v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
15 May 2015

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s 127A(1)(a), two counts of producing child exploitation material contrary to s 130A, one count of accessing child exploitation material contrary to s 130D, two counts of indecent act with a young person contrary to s 125B, one count of possession of child exploitation material contrary to s 130C, and one count of assault with indecent intent contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s 35(3) (on complaint).
On 13 December 2013, Wood J sentenced the appellant in respect of this offending. She sentenced him to serve a period of six years' imprisonment with effect from 18 November 2013 in respect of the indictable matters, and a further term of four months' imprisonment in respect of the matter on complaint. It was ordered that the second sentence be served concurrently with the first, and that the appellant not be eligible for parole until he had…

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 CJP v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: CJP v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 9
Case: [2015] TASCCA 9
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the respondent, CJP, who had been convicted of sexual offences against two children aged four and seven years. The sentence handed down by the trial judge was six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Tennent and Pearce JJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal. This required the Court to consider the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the appropriate weight to be given to various sentencing factors in cases involving serious sexual offending against children.

The Full Court applied established principles of sentencing, acknowledging the gravity of the offences and the vulnerability of the victims. The Court considered the sentencing remarks of the trial judge and found no error in the application of sentencing principles or in the assessment of the relevant factors. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for offences of this nature and did not constitute an error of law or fact that would warrant appellate intervention.

Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.