Dare v Tasmania

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of commercial premises and related offences. The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months. The appellant argued that this non-parole period was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the non-parole period of 20 months was so disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the offender as to warrant appellate intervention. The Court was required to consider the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly the threshold for finding a sentence "manifestly excessive."

The Court applied the established principles for reviewing sentences, noting that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial judge unless there is a clear error of law or the sentence is demonstrably unjust. The judges considered the nature and seriousness of the burglaries, the impact on the victims, the respondent's prior criminal record, and the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly weighed all relevant factors and that the imposed sentence, including the non-parole period, was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.