Harland-White v The Queen - [1998] TASSC 999

1/1998

PARTIES:  HARLAND-WHITE,Gregory John
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 41/1997
DELIVERED:  4 February 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  4 November 1997
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Wright and Crawford JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Parity - Generally - Sentencing tariff - Duty to exercise independent discretion - Level of sentencing only one factor in the proper exercise of the discretion.

R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83; R v Dowie [1989] Tas R 167; Postiglione v R (1997) 145 ALR 408, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [835]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In Person
             Respondent:  C J Geason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  In Person
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:
Judgment ID Number:  1/1998
Number of pages:  8

Serial No 1/1998
File No CCA 41/1997

GREGORY JOHN HARLAND-WHITE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
WRIGHT J
CRAWFORD J
4 February 1998

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 1/1998
File No CCA 41/1997

GREGORY JOHN HARLAND-WHITE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
4 February 1998

This is an appeal against a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant upon a plea of guilty to one count of burglary and one count of stealing. The appellant acquired some oxyacetylene cutting equipment and, with the help of another man, took this equipment to the Launceston General Hospital. The co-offender remained outside the hospital and waited. The appellant climbed up some scaffolding that was in place at the hospital in connection with some building work that had to be done. On gaining entry to the hospital through the roof, the appellant went to the pharmacy and cut open three safes. From these safes, the appellant removed a large quantity of drugs, mainly narcotics. The learned sentencing judge was told that the "street value" of these drugs was in the order of $250,000. There was a dispute at the sentencing hearing as to whether the appellant intended at the time he committed the crimes to sell any part of the stolen drugs. The learned sentencing judge made it clear at the time he passed sentence that he accepted that the appellant was addicted to narcotic substances. He said that it was not necessary to make a positive finding "that commercial gain was the primary motive behind the burglary". The learned sentencing judge found that the appellant "planned and prepared for the burglary in a professional manner". His Honour accepted that at the time of the taking, the appellant did not intend to sell the drugs, but quite properly took into account that having regard to the quantity involved, there was a substantial risk that some of them could find their way onto the street.
The appellant was a mature man, aged 32 at the time these crimes were committed. He had quite a substantial…

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 Harland-White v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harland-White v The Queen [1998] TASSC 999
Case: [1998] TASSC 999
Decision Date: 3 February 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gregory John Harland-White appeals against a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed upon him following a guilty plea to one count of burglary and one count of stealing. The appellant, along with an accomplice, executed a meticulously planned burglary at the Launceston General Hospital, during which they stole a substantial quantity of drugs, primarily narcotics, valued at approximately $250,000 on the street. Despite his addiction to narcotics, which has significantly influenced his criminal history, the appellant's actions were premeditated and targeted a public institution dedicated to the treatment of the sick and injured, raising serious concerns about public safety and health.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to address whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether there was unjustifiable disparity between the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-offender, and whether the failure to obtain a pre-sentence report constituted an error. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the reference to the "street value" of the stolen drugs was legally erroneous and if the learned sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty.

In its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's consideration of the plea of guilty, noting that the appellant had not contested the facts presented. The Court highlighted that the severity of criminal conduct, rather than the name of the crime, was paramount. It emphasized that while sentencing tariffs serve as a guide, they are not rigid rules, and the unique circumstances of each case must be considered. The Court found that the appellant's crimes, due to their premeditated nature and the significant risk they posed to public health, warranted a severe sentence. The Court concluded that the sentence of three years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders