Hales v Tasmania - [2009] TASSC 100

[2009] TASSC 100

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

CITATION: Hales v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 100

PARTIES:  HALES, Shaun Daniel
  v
  TASMANIA, State of

FILE NO/S:  CCA 4/2009
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON:  13 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Blow and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Whether sentence for manslaughter manifestly excessive.
Aust Digest Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T Jago
             Respondent:  C Rheinberger, S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 100
Number of paragraphs: 54

Serial No 100/2009
File No CCA 4/2009

SHAUN DANIEL HALES v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  BLOW J
  PORTER J
  13 NOVEMBER 2009

Orders of the Court

Appeal against sentence allowed.

Sentences quashed.

The appellant is sentenced on the first count of manslaughter to imprisonment for 7 years from 21 May 2008 and it is ordered that he is not to be eligible for parole until he has served 4 years 6 months of the imprisonment.

The appellant is sentenced on the second count for wounding to imprisonment for 12 months, cumulative on the imprisonment imposed for manslaughter, and it is ordered that he is not to be eligible for parole until he has served 7 months of the imprisonment.

The appellant is sentenced on the third count for wounding to imprisonment for 1 year 6 months, cumulative on both of the other sentences, and it is ordered that he is not to be eligible for parole until he has served 11 months of the imprisonment.

Serial No 100/2009
File No CCA 4/2009

SHAUN DANIEL HALES v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  13 NOVEMBER 2009

Following a trial for one count of murder and two counts of wounding, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and the two counts of wounding. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years for manslaughter, imprisonment for 12 months for one of the counts of wounding, and imprisonment for 18 months for the other count of wounding. Each period of imprisonment was cumulative to the others, so that he faces an overall period of 11 years 6 months in prison. A single non-parole order was made, in terms that he was not to be eligible for parole before the expiration of 8 years. It was expressed as applying "to the cumulative sentence of 11 years and 6 months".

He appealed against the sentence on two grounds. They were that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the so called totality principle.

The parole eligibility order

Although not a ground of appeal, the learned judge erred by imposing a single non-parole period in respect of the three sentences of imprisonment in total. The Sentencing…

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 Hales v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Hales v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 100
Case: [2009] TASSC 100
Decision Date: 13 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Hales v Tasmania involved a challenge to the sentence imposed on the appellant for manslaughter. The appellant, having been convicted of manslaughter, sought to appeal the sentence imposed, arguing it was excessive. The respondent, the State of Tasmania, defended the sentence as appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issue central to the court's consideration was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. This required the court to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the principles governing sentencing for manslaughter, as well as the specific facts and context of the case. The court had to determine whether the sentence departed so significantly from what would be considered appropriate as to warrant interference by the appellate court.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, focusing on the objective of ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The court also considered the particular circumstances of the case, including the appellant's background, the nature of the crime, and the impact on the victim and their family. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The original sentence was upheld as appropriate and proportionate given the circumstances.

Orders