Legal Research
Cases
Cooper v Tasmania

Cooper v Tasmania

Case [2017] TASCCA 3 14 March 2017

Appeal

Sentencing

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2017] TASCCA 3

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

CITATION: Cooper v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 3

PARTIES:  COOPER, Alexander Peter
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2842/2016
DELIVERED ON:  14 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 March 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt and Brett JJ, Porter AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Trafficking in controlled substances – Whether sentence gave adequate weight to rehabilitation – No manifest excess.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  T Jacobs
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  N/A
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 3
Number of paragraphs: 16

Serial No 3/2017
File No 2842/2016

ALEXANDER PETER COOPER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
BRETT J
PORTER AJ
14 March 2017

Order of the Court (2 March 2017):

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 3/2017
File No 2842/2016

ALEXANDER PETER COOPER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
14 March 2017

The appeal

The appellant, Alexander Peter Cooper, appeals against a sentence imposed upon him by Blow CJ on 16 September 2016.
His Honour convicted the appellant of the crime of trafficking contrary to s 12(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 and sentenced him to a period of 14 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven months. The drug involved was the form of methylamphetamine commonly known as Ice.
The grounds of the appellant's appeal are that the sentence failed to give adequate weight to his rehabilitation and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The law

The legal principles applicable to appeals against sentence on the ground of manifest excess or inadequacy are clear and well settled. They can be found succinctly stated in Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1 at [31]–[34], per Porter J, and in Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce [2015] TASCCA 1 at [8] per Pearce J. Whether the learned sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's rehabilitation can only be determined by examining the anterior question of whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The sentence

The learned sentencing judge made the following comments on passing sentence, which comments adequately set out both the facts of the appellant's offending and his personal circumstances, including reference to his remarkable recovery from his addiction to the drug he was convicted of trafficking in:
"Mr Cooper has been found guilty by a jury on a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance. The controlled substance was crystal methylamphetamine. He made the mistake of leaving a small snaplock bag containing some of that drug in a car which he returned to a car rental company on 23 September last year. Police officers visited the place where he was living on 12 November, conducted a search, and found 18 snaplock bags containing…

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 Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 3
Case: [2017] TASCCA 3
Decision Date: 14 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Criminal Appeal, heard an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Cooper, who had been convicted of trafficking in controlled substances. The respondent was the State of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly in relation to the weight given to rehabilitation.

The Court considered the sentencing judge's reasons and the principles of sentencing applicable to drug trafficking offences. It was held that the sentencing judge had adequately considered all relevant factors, including the need for general deterrence and the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders