Furley v Tasmania - [2007] TASSC 35

[2007] TASSC 35

CITATION: Furley v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 35

PARTIES:  FURLEY, Troy Matthew
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA (THE)

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 12/2007
DELIVERED ON:  8 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Miscellaneous matters – Abnormal mental condition – Schizophrenia – Competing considerations of reduced moral culpability and the need to protect the public.

Sentencing Act1997 (Tas), s75.
Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (Tas), s26(1)(a).
Veen v R [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; Channon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1, applied.
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [841]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T Jago
             Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 35
Number of paragraphs: 30

Serial No 35/2007
File No CCA 12/2007

TROY MATTHEW FURLEY v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
SLICER J
BLOW J
8 June 2007

Orders of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 35/2007
File No CCA 12/2007

TROY MATTHEW FURLEY v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
8 June 2007

Although there are two grounds of appeal, the substance of the appellant's case is that his sentence is manifestly excessive. The learned sentencing judge ordered imprisonment for five years, backdated to 17 January 2006, and fixed a three year non-parole period. A supervision order was made, effective upon release from prison, placing the appellant under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist.

The orders were made upon the appellant's pleas of guilty to robbery (2), attempted robbery (2), and assault (1). All the crimes were committed within a period just short of five weeks between 14 December 2005 and 17 January 2006. The robberies occurred when the appellant twice visited a supermarket. On each occasion he pretended to have a gun or other weapon and forced the female shop assistant to hand over several hundred dollars. Next, the appellant approached a woman who was putting her 15-month old child into her car that was parked in a public car park. He demanded cash. He threatened to kill the child. The victim gave the appellant her handbag but, without looking in it, the appellant gave it back, saying that it had no money in it. Next, the appellant assaulted a woman on her early morning walk by threatening her with a knife and, lastly, he assaulted another early morning female walker by again threatening her with a knife. This time the appellant demanded money, but desisted when his victim told him to go away.

Although only 22 years old at the times the crimes were committed, but for one matter, it could not…

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 Furley v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Furley v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 35
Case: [2007] TASSC 35
Decision Date: 8 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Furley v Tasmania, the appellant, Furley, appealed against his conviction and sentence on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to consider his schizophrenia as a mitigating factor. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue revolved around whether the trial judge erred by not adequately considering the appellant's abnormal mental condition, specifically his schizophrenia, in the context of assessing his moral culpability and determining the appropriate sentence.

The court examined the principles governing the sentencing process, particularly focusing on the need to balance the reduced moral culpability of an offender with an abnormal mental condition against the imperative to protect the public. It was necessary to determine if the trial judge's failure to consider the mitigating effect of schizophrenia constituted a material error that warranted a new sentencing hearing. The court held that the trial judge's approach to sentencing was fundamentally flawed due to the omission to consider the mitigating impact of the appellant's condition, which was a significant error.

The court emphasised that where an offender suffers from a significant mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, the sentencing court must consider how this condition impacts the offender's moral culpability and the potential for rehabilitation. The failure to do so can lead to an unjust outcome. Consequently, the High Court found that the trial judge's oversight constituted a material error that warranted a new sentencing hearing. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a fresh sentencing hearing that appropriately considered the mitigating impact of the appellant's schizophrenia.

Orders