Davidson v State of Tasmania - [2019] TASCCA 9

[2019] TASCCA 9

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

CITATION: Davidson v State of Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 9

PARTIES:  DAVIDSON, Nathan Scott
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  3149/2018
DELIVERED ON:  28 June 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 April 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J, Estcourt J, Marshall AJ

CATCHWORDS:

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

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  P Sherriff
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASCCA 9
Number of paragraphs: 26

Serial No 9/2019
File No CCA 3149/2018

NATHAN SCOTT DAVIDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
ESTCOURT J
MARSHALL AJ
28 June 2019

Order of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 9/2019
File No 3149/2018

NATHAN SCOTT DAVIDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
28 June 2019

The appellant has lodged an appeal on two grounds. First, his sentence is manifestly excessive and second, the time he spent on bail awaiting trial was excessive. He was unrepresented at the hearing of his appeal. His main argument concerning his sentence of four years' imprisonment was that he had spent too long on bail awaiting trial. Implicit in his argument is that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the lengthy period he spent awaiting trial. The sentence has been scrutinised by Estcourt J for manifest excess and I agree with all that he has said. I wish to highlight a few matters in view of the appellant's grievance about delay.
The appellant argued that he spent nearly four years awaiting trial, and that other accused have not had to wait as long as he did. He was subject to harsh bail conditions, he appeared in the Supreme Court on a vast number of occasions, and his trial was listed as a "backstop" trial on three or four occasions.
A time-line was provided to the learned sentencing judge and unchallenged by the appellant's counsel at the sentencing hearing. There are number of matters that may be noted. The appellant was not on bail for nearly four years, he was awaiting trial for a period of three years and three months (some of which he spent serving terms of imprisonment). His trial would likely have proceeded at an earlier stage but for outstanding assault charges before the Supreme Court which had priority. His trial would likely have proceeded at an earlier stage if his counsel had informed the Crown that not all the evidence was disputed and concessions made just before the commencement of the trial had been made at an earlier stage. Additionally, it may be noted that the appellant's bail conditions were not harsh or particularly strict given the nature of the charges he faced. The appellant's…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davidson v State of Tasmania and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] TASCCA 9
Decision Date: 28 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Davidson and others, appealed against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following their convictions for trafficking in controlled substances. The appeal concerned whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentences, specifically whether the sentences were so disproportionate to the objective circumstances of the offending as to be demonstrably unjust or unreasonable.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds for interference and the deference owed to the sentencing judge. It examined the nature and scale of the trafficking operation, the applicants' roles within it, and relevant sentencing considerations such as deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court found no manifest excess in the sentences imposed, concluding that they fell within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed.

The appeals against sentence were dismissed.

Orders