Griffith v Tasmania

[2010] TASCCA 19

[2010] TASCCA 19

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

CITATION:              Griffith v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 19

PARTIES:  GRIFFITH, Nathan Robert
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S:  671/2010
DELIVERED ON:  11 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10 November 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Blow and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference - Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Wounding.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant:  K Cuthbertson
Respondent:  D G Coates SC
Solicitors:
Appellant:  Murdoch Clarke
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2010] TASCCA 19
Number of paragraphs:  16

Serial No 19/2010
File No 671/2010

NATHAN ROBERT GRIFFITH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
BLOW J
WOOD J
11 November 2010

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 19/2010
File No 671/2010

NATHAN ROBERT GRIFFITH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
BLOW J
WOOD J
11 November 2010

1. The appellant was found guilty of the crime of wounding.  Evans J sentenced him to imprisonment for 18 months from 2 August 2010, with a non-parole period of 12 months.  He appealed on the ground of manifest excessiveness. 

1. At about 6am on 31 January last, he was on the pathway outside an upper Liverpool Street residence in which a party, not involving him, had been in progress.  The complainant, who was the occupier, left the residence to speak to a youth who had been asked to leave because of fighting.  As the complainant returned to the unit, he noticed the appellant approaching him, and said to him that he was not welcome inside.  The appellant followed the complainant a short distance up steps leading from the pathway to the residence.  The complainant turned to speak to him and placed an empty stubby on the ground.  As he did so, the appellant queried whether the complainant was going to glass him.  The complainant said he was not, whereupon the appellant picked up the stubby and struck the complainant with it on the side of the head, with sufficient force to break the stubby.  At the time of the attack, the appellant was intoxicated.  He was not provoked by the complainant.

1. The blow caused a six centimetre laceration to the scalp above the left ear.  The complainant went to the Royal Hobart Hospital where the wound was cleaned and closed with seven staples.  He attended his general practitioner for two follow-up visits and had two days off work.  At the time of sentencing, he still suffered pain which could become quite distracting.  He had a six centimetre scar in his scalp, which had healed in the form of a "step" or raised scar.

1. The appellant was 22 years old. He was employed and had demonstrated a good work ethic.  He lived with and supported his mother, who had had periods of anxiety and depression.  Those matters in mitigation did not…