COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Daley v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 10
PARTIES: DALEY, Patrick Stanley v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: CCA 778/2014 DELIVERED ON: 22 August 2016 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 16 August 2016 JUDGMENT OF: Blow CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Two murders – Premeditated killings when children present – Sentence of 45 years' imprisonment with 25 year non-parole period.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: G A Richardson Respondent: J Hartnett, J Ansell Solicitors: Appellant: G A Richardson Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 10 Number of paragraphs: 43
Serial No 10/2016
File No CCA 778/2014
PATRICK STANLEY DALEY v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ ESTCOURT J BRETT J 22 August 2016
Order of the Court (16 August 2016)
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 10/2016
File No CCA 778/2014
PATRICK STANLEY DALEY v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ 22 August 2016
On 16 December 2012 the appellant, Patrick Daley, murdered his former partner, Meagan Wilton, and her new partner, Benjamin Eyles, by shooting them with a shotgun. He pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and was sentenced by Porter J to 45 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years. He appealed to this Court, contending that both the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 16 August 2016, this Court dismissed the appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date. We are now publishing our reasons for dismissing the appeal.
The facts relevant to the murders, their impact on others, and the appellant's personal circumstances are set out in substantial detail in the reasons of Estcourt J. For the reasons stated by him, I too concluded that neither the head sentence nor the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. There are some comments that I would like to make.
Few sentences have been imposed in Tasmania for double murders since mandatory sentences of life imprisonment for murder were abolished in 1994. It is true that the appellant's sentence is one of the heaviest to be imposed upon a double murderer in this State since then. And it is true that there were mitigating factors that had to be given some weight by the learned sentencing judge, particularly the appellant's previous good character, his lack of serious prior convictions, his confession, his co-operation with the police, his pleas of guilty, and his self-inflicted injuries. The pleas of guilty were by no means early ones, nor were they the result of remorse, but they avoided the cost and inconvenience of a trial, made it unnecessary for Ms Wilton's younger daughter to give evidence about hearing the appellant kill her…
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 Daley v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Daley v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 10
Case
[2016] TASCCA 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Daley appealed against a sentence of 45 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years, imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following his conviction for two murders. The murders were premeditated and occurred in circumstances where children were present.
The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the principles of sentencing applicable to such serious crimes.
The Full Court applied established principles of sentencing, noting that while the sentence was severe, it was not outside the bounds of what was permissible for two premeditated murders, particularly given the presence of children. The court considered the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The judges found that the sentencing judge had properly weighed all relevant factors and that the sentence reflected the extreme seriousness of the offending.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania was upheld.