Gunn v Reardon and Rogers - [2022] TASSC 10

[2022] TASSC 10

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Gunn v Reardon and Rogers [2022] TASSC 10

PARTIES:  GUNN, Timothy Andrew
  v
  REARDON, Sergeant Robert
  ROGERS, Sergeant Gregory

FILE NO: LCA 3206/2021

DELIVERED ON: 21 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Whether sentences manifestly excessive – Multiple breaches of family violence order and three breaches of COVID-19 pandemic public health requirements – Two cumulative sentences totalling ten months' imprisonment with four months suspended – Matters to be taken into account when sentencing for breach of public health requirements – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Motion to review refused.
Emergency Management Act 2006 (Tas), s 60.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  P Monk
             Respondent:  E Bill
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Tasmania Legal Aid
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 10
Number of paragraphs: 91

Serial No 10/2022
File No LCA 3206/2021

TIMOTHY ANDREW GUNN v SERGEANT ROBERT REARDON
and SERGEANT GREGORY ROGERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

This is a motion by the applicant, Timothy Andrew Gunn, to review two cumulative sentences of imprisonment imposed by a magistrate, S Mollard, on 21 December 2021.
Complaints 8281/2021, 8282/2021, 9075/2021, and 9548/2021 all alleged breaches of a Nationally Recognised Domestic Violence Order, with 17 total breaches alleged across those complaints. On his pleas of guilty to those complaints the applicant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment, with two months of that sentence being suspended.
Complaint 8280/2021 alleged one count of knowingly providing false information and failing to comply with lawful requirement of an emergency management worker, and complaint 91195/2021 alleged one count of failure to comply with lawful requirement of an emergency management worker. On his pleas of guilty to those complaints, the applicant was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of five months with two months of that sentence being suspended.
The "public health" complaints were as follows:
· Failing to comply with a lawful requirement or direction of an emergency management worker by entering Tasmania on 11 October 2021 when prohibited from doing so by the directions of the Deputy State Controller, contrary to s 60(c) of the Emergency Management Act 2006: (Complaint 91195/2021).
· Knowingly providing false or misleading information by stating to a biosecurity officer on arrival to Hobart Airport on 11 October 2021 that he had come from Queensland contrary to s 60(d) of the Emergency Management Act: (Complaint 8280/2021 charge 1).
· Failing to comply with a lawful requirement or direction of an emergency management worker, namely, a direction to remain in hotel quarantine for 14 days, by leaving the hotel on 11 October 2021 contrary to s 60(c) of the Emergency Management Act: (Complaint 8280/2021 charge 2).
· Making a false or misleading statement to a delegate of the Director of Public Health, namely falsely stating that he…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gunn v Reardon and Rogers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] TASSC 10
Decision Date: 21 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gunn v Reardon and Rogers, the defendant, Mr Gunn, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania, which involved multiple breaches of a family violence order and three breaches of COVID-19 pandemic public health requirements. Mr Gunn was sentenced to two cumulative sentences, totalling ten months' imprisonment, with four months suspended. The core issue in the appeal was whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the breaches and the broader context in which they occurred.

The court considered several factors when reviewing the sentence. It noted that Mr Gunn had multiple prior convictions for family violence and had breached the same family violence order on at least two other occasions. The court further highlighted that the breaches of public health requirements occurred during a global pandemic, which added to the seriousness of the offences. In evaluating the sentence, the court considered the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the principle of proportionality. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately reflected the severity of the breaches and the need to protect the community.

Given the court's reasoning, it refused the motion to review the sentence. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed, considering all relevant factors. The decision underscores the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to sentencing in cases involving serious breaches of public health requirements and family violence orders, particularly in the context of a pandemic.

Orders