Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

[2013] TASCCA 10

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

CITATION:                 Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10

PARTIES:  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  v
  CSS

FILE NO:  CCA 532/2013
DELIVERED ON:  8 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  21 August 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Tennent and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Single count of aggravated armed robbery – Sentence of two years' imprisonment with parole ineligibility period of 12 months, cumulative with other short sentences – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Gunpoint robbery of female staff of country roadhouse.

Braslin and Cowen v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 1; Crosswell v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 1; Director of Public Prosecutions v Burns [2012] TASCCA 11; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  A Shand
             Respondent:  K Edwards
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number:  [2013] TASCCA 10
Number of paragraphs:  33

Serial No 10/2013

File No CCA 532/2013

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v CSS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
TENNENT J
PEARCE J
8 October 2013

Orders of the Court

  1. Appeal allowed.

  1. Sentence imposed on 29 May 2013 set aside.

  1. Respondent sentenced to three years' imprisonment with effect from expiration of sentences imposed on him by magistrates on 29 January 2013 and 8 May 2013.

  1. Respondent not to be eligible for parole until he has served 18 months of that sentence.

Serial No 10/2013

File No CCA 532/2013

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v CSS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
8 October 2013

  1. I have read the reasons of Pearce J in draft form.  I agree with those reasons, and with the orders he proposes.

    File No CCA 532/2013

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v CSS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
8 October 2013

  1. I have had the opportunity of reading the draft reasons of Pearce J. I agree with those reasons and the orders he proposes.

    File No CCA 532/2013

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v CSS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  PEARCE J
  8 October 2013

The Appeal

  1. The respondent, CSS, pleaded guilty on 29 May 2013 to one count of aggravated armed robbery.  He was sentenced by Evans J to two years' imprisonment cumulative to sentences he was already serving, with eligibility for parole after having served half of the sentence.

  1. The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals the sentence.  The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.

Manifest inadequacy

  1. The error asserted by the appellant in this case is of the second kind referred to in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, that is, that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is "unreasonable or plainly unjust". In House, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS 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
[2013] TASCCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, CSS, by the District Court. The dispute concerned the adequacy of a sentence of two years' imprisonment with a 12-month parole ineligibility period, imposed for a single count of aggravated armed robbery. The appeal was heard by Blow CJ, Tennent and Pearce JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent for the aggravated armed robbery was manifestly inadequate, given the seriousness of the offence. The offence involved the armed robbery of female staff at a country roadhouse at gunpoint.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the aggravated armed robbery. The court reasoned that the use of a firearm in the commission of the offence, the vulnerability of the victims, and the impact on the community warranted a more severe penalty. The court applied the principle that sentences must reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed, the original sentence was set aside, and the respondent was resentenced to three years' imprisonment. This new sentence was to commence upon the expiration of existing sentences imposed on the respondent in January and May 2013. Furthermore, the respondent was made ineligible for parole until he had served 18 months of the new sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Sentence imposed on 29 May 2013 set aside.

3. Respondent sentenced to three years' imprisonment with effect from expiration of sentences imposed on him by magistrates on 29 January 2013 and 8 May 2013.

4. Respondent not to be eligible for parole until he has served 18 months of that sentence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.