Crosswell v Tasmania - [2013] TASCCA 2

[2013] TASCCA 2

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

CITATION: Crosswell v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 2

PARTIES:  CROSSWELL, Aaron James
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 594/2012
DELIVERED ON:  1 March 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26 February 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Unlawfully injuring property and attempted stealing – Blowing up of automatic teller machine – Whether sentence of 15 months' imprisonment with parole eligibility after 12 months manifestly excessive – Delay in prosecution – Shorter parole ineligibility for co-offender.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  K Baumeler
           Respondent:  J Hartnett and A Shand
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2013] TASCCA 2
Number of paragraphs: 13

Serial No 2/2013
File No CCA 594/2012

AARON JAMES CROSSWELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
PORTER J
WOOD J
1 March 2013

Order of the Court (26 February 2013)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 2/2013
File No CCA594/2012

AARON JAMES CROSSWELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
PORTER J
WOOD J
1 March 2013

This appeal was dismissed by this Court on 26 February 2013. These are our reasons for dismissing it.

This was a sentencing appeal. In the early hours of 9 April 2009 the appellant, Aaron Crosswell, travelled with some companions from Hobart to Oatlands, and then to Orford, where they blew up an automatic teller machine, hoping to steal from it. They did not succeed in getting any money out of the machine. The appellant and one of his companions, Kurt James, were tried together in relation to the incident. In June 2012 a jury found them both guilty of unlawfully injuring property and attempted stealing. Tennent J sentenced the appellant to 15 months' imprisonment with effect from 24 June 2012, and ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served 12 months of that sentence. In this appeal he contends that both the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The appellant's crimes were very serious. He and his companions initially planned to blow up an ATM at Oatlands, but they changed their plans and drove from there to Orford. They went equipped with gas bottles and a device for pumping gas into an ATM. The appellant and two other men travelled in his car. (The third man was charged and sentenced separately.) Two females travelled in a second car. The explosion destroyed the ATM. Repairs cost $29,731.70. The explosion started a fire. The ATM was housed in the wall of a local supermarket. Fortunately a local police officer attended the scene quickly and extinguished the fire. Otherwise the consequences could have been far worse. The local community was left without the services of the ATM for some time.

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 Crosswell v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Crosswell v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 2
Case: [2013] TASCCA 2
Decision Date: 1 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania heard an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Crosswell, who had been convicted of unlawfully injuring property and attempted stealing. The charges arose from the applicant's involvement in an attempt to blow up an automatic teller machine. The applicant argued that the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set after 12 months, was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the imposed sentence was demonstrably too severe, warranting appellate intervention. In considering this, the Court was required to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the gravity of the offences, the applicant's personal circumstances, and any relevant comparative factors, such as the sentence imposed on a co-offender and the delay in bringing the prosecution.

The Court reasoned that the offences involved a significant degree of planning and a dangerous method, posing a risk to public safety. While acknowledging the delay in prosecution and the fact that a co-offender received a shorter period of parole ineligibility, the Court found that these factors did not render the sentence imposed on the applicant manifestly excessive. The Court applied the principles of sentencing, considering the need for deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation, and concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed.

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.