Godfrey v Bannon - [2025] TASSC 39

[2025] TASSC 39

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Godfrey v Bannon [2025] TASSC 39

PARTIES:  GODFREY, Jessica (Sergeant)
  v
  BANNON, Jamie Leigh

FILE NO: 2311/2024

DELIVERED ON:  3 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 February 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  JAGO J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and Review – Appeal against sentence – grounds for interference – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – appeals by Crown – principles applied by appellate court to Crown appeals – indecent assault – sentence not manifestly inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Magistrates – Appeal and Review - Failure to make order pursuant to Community Protection (offender Reporting) Act 2005 – error or mistake on the part of justice – no magistrate acting reasonably could have failed to find risk of future offending.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  L Ogden
             Respondent:  L Edwards
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Friend & Edward Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2025] TASSC 39
Number of paragraphs: 42

Serial No 39/2025
File No 2311/2024

SERGEANT JESSICA GODFREY v JAMIE LEIGH BANNON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT JAGO J

3 July 2025

This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate, Mr E Hughes. The respondent was, following a hearing, found guilty of one count of indecent assault contrary to s 127(1) of the Criminal Code. The respondent elected to be tried summarily pursuant to s 72(1) Justices Act 1959. The applicant is a police officer who made the complaint against the respondent. The particulars that the magistrate found proved were that on 19 March 2022, the respondent unlawfully and indecently assaulted a female, whom I shall refer to as the complainant, by placing his right hand down her underwear and sliding his finger down the crease of her buttocks. The respondent was sentenced on 5 June 2024. The magistrate convicted the respondent and made a Community Corrections order for 12 months, with a special condition that the respondent perform 77 hours of community service. The magistrate declined to make an order in respect to s 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005.
There are two grounds to the motion to review: firstly, that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and secondly, that the magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in failing to make an order under s 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act.

The principles

Principles relevant to an appeal of this nature are frequently referred to by appellate courts and are well understood. To succeed on a ground that a sentence is manifestly inadequate, it is not enough to establish that the sentence may be regarded by some as too lenient. An appeal court may not substitute its own opinion for that of the magistrate merely because it may have exercised the sentencing discretion differently and imposed a more severe penalty: Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29, 195 CLR 665 at [15]. This Court must be persuaded of error of…

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 Godfrey v Bannon

Details

AGLC: Godfrey v Bannon [2025] TASSC 39
Case: [2025] TASSC 39
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Godfrey was convicted of indecent assault, and the Crown appealed the sentence as manifestly inadequate. Bannon, the appellant, contested this appeal. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Godfrey was manifestly inadequate and if the Crown's appeal should be upheld. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles guiding the appellate court when reviewing sentences in cases where the Crown appeals.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court. It considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, which would warrant interference by the appellate court. The court also reviewed the principles and criteria that govern appeals by the Crown, focusing on whether the sentence imposed was too lenient. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence, while lenient, was not so inadequate as to warrant interference. The court held that the Magistrates' Court had exercised its discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant factors, and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

Consequently, the court dismissed the Crown's appeal. The original sentence imposed on Godfrey was upheld, and no further action was required. The court's decision underscored the importance of respecting the discretionary powers of the lower court in sentencing matters, particularly in cases where the Crown seeks to appeal. The appellate court's role is to ensure that the sentence is not manifestly inadequate, and in this case, the court found that the Magistrates' Court had adequately exercised its discretion.

Orders