Harrison v Taws - [2009] TASSC 33

[2009] TASSC 33

CITATION: Harrison v Taws [2009] TASSC 33

PARTIES:  HARRISON, Matthew John
  v
  TAWS, Jayson (A/Sergeant)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  67/2009
DELIVERED ON:  18 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 April 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Jurisdiction and procedure generally – Procedure – The hearing – Matters relating to decision – Duty to state reasons for sentence – Whether breach of duty an error of law.

Trueman v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 29, followed.
Aust Dig Magistrates [128]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  M L Doyle
             Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Beeton & Mansell
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 33
Number of paragraphs: 37

Serial No 33/2009
File No 67/2009

MATTHEW JOHN HARRISON v A/SERGEANT JAYSON TAWS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD CJ

18 May 2009

The applicant seeks to review a sentencing order of a magistrate made on 8 January 2009. The learned magistrate imposed one sentence for a number of matters, the sentence being a fine of $2,400 and disqualification from driving for 12 months.

The grounds of review are threefold: that the period of disqualification was manifestly excessive; that the learned magistrate erred by failing to take into consideration that the applicant had already suffered a period of disqualification from driving in respect of one of the matters for which he was sentenced; and that the learned magistrate erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence.

The earlier imposition of community service orders

The applicant was charged with seven offences, three of which were failures to comply with the conditions of community service orders, contrary to the Sentencing Act 1997, s36(1). It is necessary to consider the circumstances in which the community service orders were made, because the learned magistrate re-sentenced the applicant for the offences in respect of which they were made.

I note that there appears to be a conflict between his record and a memorandum of sentence insofar as concerns the date upon which a sentence was imposed for a charge of driving while disqualified. In the following paragraph I state that the sentence was imposed on 19 May 1999 in accordance with the memorandum of sentence. If the memorandum is erroneous, it is immaterial to the outcome of this motion.

On 19 May 1999, a magistrate made community service orders that required the applicant to perform in total 49 hours of community service. For driving while disqualified, 28 hours were ordered, for a breach of bail, seven hours were ordered, for another breach of bail, seven hours were ordered, and for a failure to appear, seven hours were ordered, each cumulative to the others. In addition, on the charge of driving while disqualified, it was ordered that he be disqualified from driving for three months.

The offences for which the sentence under review was imposed

The seven offences were charged on three complaints. They were:

(1)On 1 May 2004 in Archer Street, Launceston, the applicant…

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 Harrison v Taws

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Taws [2009] TASSC 33
Case: [2009] TASSC 33
Decision Date: 18 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison v Taws involved the defendant, Harrison, who was appealing against his conviction and sentence for various offences. The decision was handed down by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The appeal centered around the magistrate's failure to provide reasons for the sentence imposed on the defendant.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the magistrate's omission to provide reasons for the sentence constituted an error of law, thereby rendering the sentence invalid. This required the court to examine the procedural obligations of a magistrate when imposing a sentence, specifically the requirement to articulate the reasons for the sentence handed down.

The court found that the duty to state reasons for a sentence is a fundamental procedural requirement. The omission to provide reasons is not merely an administrative oversight but an error of law that affects the validity of the sentence. In this instance, the magistrate's failure to articulate reasons for the sentence rendered it invalid, and the appeal was allowed. Consequently, the sentence imposed on the defendant was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrates' Court for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the sentence be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the Magistrates' Court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the magistrate provides adequate reasons for the new sentence imposed.

Orders