Hill v Tasmania - [2022] TASCCA 5

[2022] TASCCA 5

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Hill v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 5
PARTIES:	HILL, Anthony James
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 3053/2021
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	29 April 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 – 31 counts of computer related fraud and six counts of fraud – Sentenced to a home detention order for a period of 15 months – Home detention order set aside – In lieu of home detention order, sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: S Wilson

Solicitors:

Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASCCA 5
Number of paragraphs:	20

Serial No 5/2022

File No CCA 3053/2021

ANTHONY JAMES HILL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ESTCOURT J JAGO J MARTIN AJ 12 May 2022
Orders of the Court:

1 The learned sentencing judge's sentencing order be set aside, save as to conviction.
2 In lieu thereof, the appellant be sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months from 29 April 2022.

Serial No 5/2022

File No CCA 3053/2021

ANTHONY JAMES HILL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ESTCOURT J 12 May 2022
The appeal

1 On 23 November 2021 the appellant, Anthony James Hill, was convicted of thirty one counts of computer related fraud and six counts of fraud. He was sentenced by Geason J to a home detention order for a period of 15 months. The order was subject to the standard conditions appearing in s 42AD of the Sentencing Act 1997 which included electronic monitoring. It was not subject to any special conditions under that Act.
2            The offending occurred over a period of time from February 2017 to March 2018, and the total loss caused to the golf club of which he was the treasurer was $28,613.38.
3             The appellant has appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In his written submissions however, he makes it clear that he does not seek to have the home detention order cancelled but complains that the period of the order is excessive. He seeks to have it reduced in length.
4             At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal the Court ordered that the learned sentencing judge's sentencing order be set aside, save as to conviction, and that in lieu thereof the appellant be sentenced to nine months imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18…

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 Hill v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Hill v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 5
Case: [2022] TASCCA 5
Decision Date: 12 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hill, appealed against a sentence imposed by a lower court following convictions for 31 counts of computer related fraud and six counts of fraud. The original sentence was a home detention order for 15 months. The appeal was heard by Estcourt J, Jago J, and Martin AJ.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the original sentence of a home detention order was manifestly inadequate, justifying interference by the appellate court. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the sentencing objectives, including deterrence and punishment, in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court reasoned that the gravity of the offences, involving significant financial loss and a breach of trust, warranted a more severe penalty than a home detention order. The appellate court found the original sentence to be inadequate, failing to adequately reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct. Consequently, the home detention order was set aside. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended on the condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment within an 18-month period.

Orders