Finnegan v Tasmania - [2020] TASCCA 5

[2020] TASCCA 5

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

CITATION: Finnegan v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 5

PARTIES:  FINNEGAN, Anthony Colin
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2452/2018
DELIVERED ON:  11 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  6 March, 13 December 2019, 3 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Pearce J, Marshall AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal dismissed – Appellant found guilty of murder – No significant possibility an innocent person convicted – Verdict open.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 402(1).
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53, 213 CLR 606; Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12, 94 ALJR 394, applied.
Aust Digest Criminal Law [3476]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Murder – Unintentional murder – Sentence of 21 years with non-parole period of 14 years not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 157(1)(c).
Dobson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 19, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant (6 March 2019):  In person
             Appellant (13 December 2019, 3 March 2020)     M Truong
             Respondent:  J Hartnett
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2020] TASCCA 5
Number of paragraphs: 86

Serial No 5/2020
File No 2452/2018

ANTHONY COLIN FINNEGAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
PEARCE J
MARSHALL AJ
11 May 2020

Order of the Court (3 March 2020)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 5/2020
File No 2452/2018

ANTHONY COLIN FINNEGAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
11 May 2020

The appellant, Anthony Finnegan, appealed against his conviction on a charge of murder, and against his sentence of 21 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. On 3 March 2020 this Court dismissed his appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date. My reasons for concluding that the appeal should be dismissed were the same as the reasons now stated by Pearce J.

File No 2452/2018

ANTHONY COLIN FINNEGAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
11 May 2020

The appeal

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Peter Fitzgerald. He was sentenced by Brett J on 4 September 2018 to imprisonment for 21 years from 1 December 2016. His Honour ordered that the appellant not be eligible for parole until having served 14 years of that sentence.
This appeal concerns both his conviction and sentence. The appeal first came before this Court on 6 March 2019. At that time the appellant was unrepresented. He argued that his conviction was "unreasonable and unsupported". After that part of the appeal was argued and the Court reserved its decision, the appellant obtained legal representation. Leave was granted to add a…

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 Finnegan v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Finnegan v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 5
Case: [2020] TASCCA 5
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Finnegan v Tasmania concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Finnegan, was found guilty of murder by a jury. He appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. The appellant argued that the evidence did not sufficiently support the conviction, raising doubts about the safety of the verdict.

The Court, comprising Blow CJ, Pearce J, and Marshall AJ, considered the evidence in detail. Applying the principles governing appeals against jury verdicts, the Court assessed whether there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. After reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the verdict was open to the jury on the evidence presented. The Court found that the jury's decision was a reasonable one, and that there was no substantial doubt as to the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders