Crowley v R - [2003] TASSC 147

[2003] TASSC 147

CITATION: Crowley v R [2003] TASSC 147

PARTIES:  CROWLEY, Michael James
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 77/2003
DELIVERED ON:  22 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  5 November 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Crawford and Evans JJ
  Edited edition
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Sexual offences – Sentencing – Maintaining sexual relationship with young person – Sentence of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment – Six months suspended – Non-parole period of 1 year – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [175]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:                  G A Richardson
           Respondent:  T J Ellis SC
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment ID Number: [2003] TASSC 147
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 147/2003
File No CCA 77/2003

MICHAEL JAMES CROWLEY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
COX CJ

CRAWFORD J
EVANS J

22 December 2003

Order of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 147/2003
File No CCA 77/2003

MICHAEL JAMES CROWLEY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  COX CJ
  22 December 2003

For the reasons prepared by Crawford J, which I have had the advantage of perusing, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
File No CCA 77/2003

MICHAEL JAMES CROWLEY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD J
  22 December 2003

On 28 July 2003, the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17 years, contrary to the Criminal Code, s125A. The particulars of the charge were that between August 1974 and May 1975 he maintained a sexual relationship with the complainant, to whom I will refer as C. The period commenced when she was aged 15 and finished when she was 16. Her date of birth is 18 February 1959. His date of birth is 7 November 1943.

On 31 July 2003, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years 6 months with effect from 28 July. The last six months of that imprisonment were suspended on condition that he commit no crime within two years after his release from prison. Pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1997, s17(2), it was ordered that he not be eligible for parole before the expiration of one year from 28 July 2003. He has appealed on only one ground, that being that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

At the time of sentencing, the appellant was 59 years old. He was married when he was 26. His bride was 18. C, …, was then aged 11. Before she was 13, he commenced to act improperly with her. He took her for a walk on his property, held her hand, told her that there was someone special and important in his life, whom he said he cared for and loved, and asked if she knew who it could possibly be. On her replying in the negative,…

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 Crowley v R

Details

AGLC: Crowley v R [2003] TASSC 147
Case: [2003] TASSC 147
Decision Date: 22 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crowley v R, the respondent, Crowley, was convicted of engaging in a sexual relationship with a young person, aged between 16 and 18 years, over a period of time. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The sentence comprised two years and six months' imprisonment, with six months suspended, and a non-parole period of one year. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the principles of sentencing.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. It also took into account the particular circumstances of the case, including the age of the victim, the duration of the relationship, and the impact on the victim. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It emphasised that the offence was of a serious nature and that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime, while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation through the suspended portion of the sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the need to balance the interests of the community, the offender, and the victim. It found that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and did not unduly deprive the offender of their liberty. The court also noted that the non-parole period of one year provided sufficient time for the offender to reflect on their actions and work towards rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders