COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Dobson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 19
PARTIES: DOBSON, Darren Michael v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: CCA 1694/2015 DELIVERED ON: 6 October 2017 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 10 November 2016 JUDGMENT OF: Tennent, Wood and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Nature and circumstances of offender – Prior criminality – Life sentence for unintentional murder warranted for protection of community.
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Life sentence for unintentional murder not manifestly excessive.
Counsel: Appellant: K Edwards Respondent: D G Coates SC Solicitors: Appellant: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 19 Number of paragraphs: 56
Serial No 19/2017
File No CCA 1694/2015
DARREN MICHAEL DOBSON v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J WOOD J PEARCE J 6 October 2017
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 19/2017
File No CCA 1694/2015
DARREN MICHAEL DOBSON v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J WOOD J PEARCE J 6 October 2017
The appellant, Darren Michael Dobson, pleaded guilty to murdering Jodi Eaton on 1 February 2014. At the time of the crime the appellant was aged 37. On 8 September 2015 he was sentenced by Blow CJ to imprisonment for the term of his natural life. His Honour ordered that the appellant not be eligible for parole until 20 February 2029, an effective non-parole period of 15 years, by which time the appellant will be 52. This appeal challenges the sentence. There are three grounds. The first ground asserts that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The remaining grounds assert error arising from the learned sentencing judge's categorisation of the crime as being "in the worst category of murder"; firstly, from the circumstances of the "crime itself", and secondly, by impermissible resort to the appellant's "prior criminal history".
For the reasons which follow, we have concluded that none of the grounds are made out and the appeal should be dismissed.
The circumstances of the crime
During the evening of 31 January 2014 Jodi Eaton, aged 28, went with her partner Bodizar Jelenic to the home of Peter Vernon at 3 Sage Court in Gagebrook. There were others present including the appellant and Gavin Hornberg. During the evening the appellant, and others, consumed alcohol and cannabis. Just before midnight Miss Eaton and Mr Jelenic argued. Mr Jelenic drove off in his car. Mr Vernon went to bed and the other guests also left. Miss Eaton and the…
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 Dobson v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dobson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 19
Case
[2017] TASCCA 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Dobson v Tasmania* concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, Dobson, had been convicted of unintentional murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was heard by Tennent, Wood, and Pearce JJ of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the life sentence imposed was a just and appropriate sentence, considering all relevant factors, particularly the protection of the community. The Court was required to assess whether Dobson's prior criminal history and the nature of the offence warranted such a severe penalty, even in the absence of an intention to kill.
The Court reasoned that while the offence was one of unintentional murder, the appellant's extensive and serious criminal history, coupled with the need to protect the public from further harm, justified the imposition of a life sentence. The Court applied principles of sentencing that consider the offender's character, the gravity of the offence, and the paramount importance of community safety. The Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly weighed these factors and that the life sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania was affirmed.