Hawdon v Tasmania

Case [2022] TASCCA 4


[2022] TASCCA 4

COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:  Hawdon v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 4
PARTIES:  HAWDON, Grant-Lee Michael
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:  2152/2021
DELIVERED ON:  29 March 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  9 March 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J, Jago J, Martin AJ
CATCHWORDS: 

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – One count of armed robbery and one count of attempted aggravated armed robbery – Robbery at a bottle shop and attempted robbery at newsagency, disguised and armed with a knife – Two sentences imposed – Sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-

parole period of half that term and a sentence of four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of

half that term to be served concurrently with the first term held to be manifestly excessive –

Resentenced.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:  R Mainwaring
Respondent:  M Figg

Solicitors:

Appellant:  Tasmanian Legal Aid
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number:  [2022] TASCCA 4
Number of paragraphs:  35

Serial No 4/2022

File No 2152/2021

GRANT-LEE MICHAEL HAWDON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
ESTCOURT J
JAGO J
MARTIN AJ
29 March 2022
Orders of the Court: 

1            Appeal allowed.

2            The sentence of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of half that term and the sentence of four years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the first term, with a non-parole period of half that term is set aside.

3            In lieu thereof a single sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment backdated to 3 February 2020 is imposed and it is ordered that the appellant be eligible for release on parole after serving half of that sentence.

Serial No 4/2022

File No 2152/2021

GRANT-LEE MICHAEL HAWDON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
ESTCOURT J
29 March 2022
The appeal

1             The appellant Grant-Lee Michael Hawdon appeals to this Court against a sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of half that term and a sentence of four years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the first term.

2             The two sentences were imposed by Marshall AJ on 24 August 2021, upon the appellant's pleas of guilty to one count of armed robbery, contrary to s 240(3) of the Criminal Code 1924 and one count of attempted aggravated armed robbery, contrary to s 240(4) of the Code. His appeal is on the ground that the learned sentencing judge erred in law in that he imposed a sentence which was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances of the case.

3             At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, the notice of appeal was amended to add a second ground, namely "[t]hat the sentence is disparate with the sentence imposed upon the co-accused, Rachelle O'Brien, so as to give rise…

Continue reading Hawdon v Tasmania

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hawdon v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 4
Case
[2022] TASCCA 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hawdon, appealed against sentences imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The sentences were for one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted aggravated armed robbery, arising from a robbery at a bottle shop and an attempted robbery at a newsagency, both committed while disguised and armed with a knife.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal. Specifically, the court considered the appropriateness of the combined sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three and a half years, and a concurrent sentence of four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding the original sentences to be excessive. The court reasoned that a single, slightly reduced sentence would be more appropriate given the circumstances. The court set aside the original sentences and, in lieu thereof, imposed a single sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment. This sentence was backdated to 3 February 2020, and the appellant was made eligible for parole after serving half of that term.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders of the Court:

1 Appeal allowed.

2 The sentence of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of half that term and the sentence of four years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the first term, with a non-parole period of half that term is set aside.

3 In lieu thereof a single sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment backdated to 3 February 2020 is imposed and it is ordered that the appellant be eligible for release on parole after serving half of that sentence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.