Cooper v Goodwin - [2024] TASSC 78

[2024] TASSC 78

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Cooper v Goodwin [2024] TASSC 78
PARTIES:	COOPER, Ethan Scott
v
GOODWIN, Kellie (Senior Constable)
FILE NO:	462/2024
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	Hobart Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	9 December 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	9 December 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Applicant sentenced to actual term of imprisonment for family violence offences – Notice to review on grounds of manifest excess – Sentence imposed was appropriate and within sentencing discretion of Magistrate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Legislation:

Family Violence Act 2004

Cases:
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce [2015] TASCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v Foster [2019] TASCCA 15
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Sok v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCAFC 56, (2005) 144 FCR 170

Miller v McCullogh [2024] TASSC 61

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: J Crotty
Respondent: W Wu

Solicitors:

Applicant: Crotty Legal
Respondent: Office Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 78
Number of paragraphs:	26

Serial No 78/2024 File No 462/2024

ETHAN SCOTT COOPER v SENIOR CONSTABLE KELLIE GOODWIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MARSHALL AJ 9 December 2024

1             The matter before the Court is a notice to review a sentence imposed by a magistrate after the applicant's conviction on family violence offending. On the morning of the hearing, 9 December 2024, the Court announced the order it intended to make in the proceeding and pronounced that order after a short adjournment, following the conclusion of oral submissions. What follows are the Court's reasons for making that order.
2             The applicant was charged with two counts of emotional abuse or intimidation, one count of common assault, seven counts of breaching an interim family violence order, and one count of breaching bail conditions, on complaints 9613/2023, 1/2024 and 1899/2024.
3             On 19 February 2024, Magistrate Hartnett sentenced the applicant on those complaints to six months' imprisonment, backdated to 26 December 2023, with two months suspended. The suspension was on the condition that the applicant be of good behaviour for a period of two years after his release, not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment and comply with a Community Corrections order. Her Honour also made a family violence order protecting the complainant for a period of three years. There was also one count of driving whilst suspended on complaint 1/2024. That is not the subject of this appeal. The applicant was separately sentenced on that matter. The six month imprisonment sentence, with two months' suspended, was a global sentence taking into account all the other matters which may be described as family violence matters.
4             The background to the matter includes the fact that in 2023, the applicant and the complainant were in a significant relationship…

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 Cooper v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Goodwin [2024] TASSC 78
Case: [2024] TASSC 78
Decision Date: 9 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Cooper, the appellant, and Goodwin, the respondent. Cooper was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for offences related to family violence. Cooper lodged a notice to review his sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentence imposed on Cooper was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentence fell outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate and within the sentencing discretion of the Magistrate.

The court considered the nature of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the principles of sentencing for family violence offences. The court also took into account the need for deterrence, protection of the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the offender. The court found that the sentence imposed on Cooper was appropriate and within the sentencing discretion of the Magistrate. The court noted that family violence offences often carry significant penalties due to the seriousness of the harm caused and the need to protect victims and the community. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed on Cooper. The court found that the Magistrate had appropriately considered the relevant factors and principles in determining the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of respecting the sentencing discretion of the primary decision-maker, unless there is a clear error in the exercise of that discretion. The court also noted that the sentence was within the statutory maximum penalty for the offences committed.

Orders