COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Hall v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 6
PARTIES: HALL, Jamie Reginald
v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: 453/2014 DELIVERED ON: 15 April 2015 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 2 March 2015 JUDGMENT OF: Tennent, Porter and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Grounds for interference - Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate - Aggravated armed robbery and armed robbery where knife used - Sentence imposed when offender already serving sentence - Totality principle.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: G Barns and D Osz Respondent: A Shand Solicitors: Appellant: Leonard Fernandez Respondent: Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2015] TASCCA 6 Number of paragraphs: 67
Serial No 6/2015
File No 453/2014
JAMIE REGINALD HALL v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J PORTER J PEARCE J 15 April 2015
Order of the Court:
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 6/2015
File No 453/2014
JAMIE REGINALD HALL v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J 15 April 2015
On 27 March 2014, the appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of aggravated armed robbery. He was jointly charged with Garry Scott Sullivan. The charge arose out of events at Cooley's Hotel at Moonah on 13 February 2013. On 10 April 2014, the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery. That charge arose out of events at the Lenah Valley Newsagency and Post Office on 21 August 2013.
On 8 May 2014, the appellant was sentenced by Wood J in respect of both matters. He was sentenced on a global basis to serve seven years and three months' imprisonment to commence at the expiration of sentences he was then serving. It was also ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served a minimum of three years and nine months of the sentence imposed.
The appellant lodged a notice of appeal which contained five grounds. They related to an appeal against both conviction and sentence. At the hearing of the appeal, grounds 1, 2 and 4 were abandoned. What remained was an appeal against the global sentence only. The grounds of appeal were in the following terms:
"3That the learned Trial Judge erred in law in that the total head sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
5That the learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to have regard to the principle of concurrency by ordering that the sentence for the two armed robbery counts be served cumulatively on the term of imprisonment that the Appellant is serving."
Appellant's custody status at the time of sentence
At the time the appellant was sentenced by Wood J, he was already serving sentences. On 7 November 2013, the appellant was sentenced in respect of dishonesty matters committed between July 2012 and February 2013, and a period…
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 Hall v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hall v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 6
Case
[2015] TASCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hall appealed against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania for aggravated armed robbery and armed robbery, where a knife was used in both offences. The sentences were ordered to be served cumulatively upon a sentence Hall was already serving.
The appeal raised questions concerning whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the totality principle, which requires courts to consider the aggregate effect of multiple sentences when determining an appropriate punishment.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Tennent, Porter and Pearce JJ, considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and punishment. The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly applied the totality principle and that the sentences imposed were not demonstrably excessive or unjust.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were upheld.