Dickson v State of Tasmania - [2024] TASSC 24

[2024] TASSC 24

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Dickson v State of Tasmania [2024] TASSC 24
PARTIES:	DICKSON, Marc Jason
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	3402/2023
DELIVERED ON:	9 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Burnie
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Jago J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentencing orders – Whether unjust to activate suspended sentences – Whether other sentences imposed individually or in their combined effect manifestly excessive – Where no orders made allowing eligibility for parole – Consideration of totality principle

Visser v Smart [1998] TASSC 151
Braslin and Cohen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1
Tanner v Brown [2011] TASSC 59
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Nolan [2009] QCA 129
Kaya v The Queen [2014] VSCA 55
Gill v The Queen [1990] TASSC 37

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: W. Wu

Solicitors:

Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 24
Number of paragraphs:	29

Serial No 24/2024 File No 3402/2023

MARC JASON DICKSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JAGO J
9 May 2024

1 The applicant moves to review a sentence imposed on him by a magistrate, Ms K Edwards, on 16 November 2023. On that date, the applicant pleaded guilty to the following matters of complaint (the new offences):

• 51971/2023 – five counts of use computer with intent to defraud;
• 51780/2023 – one count of unlawful possession of property and seven counts of
computer related fraud;

• 51808/2023 - three counts of stealing and two counts of trespass;
• 51782/2023 - one count of possess cannabis;

• 51950/2023 - one count of possess cannabis, one count of possess methyl amphetamine
and one count of possess a thing used for administration of a controlled drug;

• 52336/2023 - one count of burglary, one count of stealing and six counts of computer
related fraud;

• 51758/2023 - three counts of contravene the conditions of a notice, three counts of
trespass, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of stealing and one count
of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage.

2 In respect these offences, her Honour imposed a global sentence of ten months' imprisonment. On the same date, her Honour also granted an application for breach of a suspended sentence, filed by prosecution on 24 October 2023. A partially suspended period of imprisonment had been imposed upon the applicant on 21 July 2022. The applicant had been sentenced to 365 days imprisonment. One hundred and forty one days of that sentencing order was suspended on condition the applicant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months. He breached that sentencing order by the commission of the new offences. That sentencing order was imposed for a large number of offences of dishonesty, including aggravated burglary, burglary, many counts of stealing, many counts of computer…

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 Dickson 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: [2024] TASSC 24
Decision Date: 9 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dickson v State of Tasmania involved an appeal by the respondent against the decision of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania to review a sentencing order. The appellant, Dickson, sought to have certain suspended sentences activated and additional penalties imposed. The respondent, the State of Tasmania, opposed this, arguing that the sentences were unjust and excessive. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which was tasked with determining whether the original sentencing was appropriate and whether the review was justified.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including whether it was unjust to activate the suspended sentences, whether the sentences imposed were individually or collectively excessive, and whether the totality principle should be applied. The court had to assess whether the sentences imposed, particularly the custodial sentences, were manifestly excessive in light of the principles of sentencing and the need to avoid disproportionality. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the sentences on Dickson's eligibility for parole, as no orders had been made in this regard during the review process.

The Supreme Court found that the original sentencing order was not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court held that the totality principle, which considers the cumulative effect of sentences, was properly applied in the original sentencing. The court also noted that the absence of parole eligibility orders did not render the sentences unjust, as Dickson's eligibility for parole would still be determined at a later stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentencing order was upheld.

The court made no orders regarding parole eligibility, as this was not before the court in the review process. The decision affirmed the original sentencing, finding it to be within the appropriate range and not constituting an abuse of the court's discretion.

Orders