Legal Research
Cases
Gregson v Tasmania

Gregson v Tasmania

Case [2018] TASCCA 14 31 August 2018

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2018] TASCCA 14

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

CITATION: Gregson v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 14

PARTIES:  GREGSON, Jarrett Duane
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 891/2018
DELIVERED ON:  31 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  7 June, 29 August 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Geason J and Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Two assaults – Multiple punches by man to female partner's head – Sentence of two years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 months.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  D G Coates SC, L Ogden
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASCCA 14
Number of paragraphs: 40

Serial No 14/2018
File No CCA 891/2018

JARRETT DUANE GREGSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
31 August 2018

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 14/2018
File No CCA 891/2018

JARRETT DUANE GREGSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
31 August 2018

I agree with Martin AJ.

File No CCA 891/2018

JARRETT DUANE GREGSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

GEASON J
31 August 2018

In this case the appellant's violence towards his partner involved two attacks upon her. The first "at least half a dozen" punches to her face with a closed fist. The second, inflicted very soon after the first, and after the complainant had phoned for help, involved another "half a dozen" punches to her head with a closed fist.
The appellant's conduct was brutal and sustained. It was unprovoked. It was cowardly. It has caused the complainant to suffer flashbacks and nightmares.
Violence in relationships takes many forms. In whatever guise, whether physical or psychological, it involves the exertion of power and control over another. The victims of such violence are diminished by it, often succumbing to mental and bodily injuries that ruin their lives.
It is a particularly insidious crime because it is difficult to detect. And an all too common consequence of this abuse is that its victims may be so broken or fearful that they do not report it.
It follows that, in sentencing for offences of this type, general deterrence is a significant factor.
The complainant is entitled to the full protection of the law, and the vindication of this Court.
The learned sentencing judge has reflected these considerations in his comments and sentence, which I consider to be an entirely appropriate response to the offending.
For these reasons, and those articulated in the judgment of Martin AJ, which I have read in draft, I join in the order dismissing the appeal.

File No CCA 891/2018

JARRETT DUANE GREGSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

MARTIN AJ
31 August 2018

Introduction

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 Gregson v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Gregson v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 14
Case: [2018] TASCCA 14
Decision Date: 31 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Criminal Appeal, heard an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Gregson, who had been convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. The applicant had assaulted his female partner, delivering multiple punches to her head. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying interference on appeal. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending and in their consideration of mitigating factors.

The Court considered the gravity of the assaults, noting the vulnerability of the victim and the repeated nature of the violence. It applied principles of sentencing that require a balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. While acknowledging the applicant's remorse and the potential for rehabilitation, the Court found that the objective seriousness of the assaults, particularly the repeated blows to the head, warranted a significant custodial sentence. The Court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not demonstrably outside the range of appropriate sentences for the offending conduct.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders