Hudson v Tasmania - [2012] TASCCA 14

[2012] TASCCA 14

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Hudson v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 14

PARTIES:  HUDSON, Sean Timothy
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 408/2012
DELIVERED ON:  19 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  20 September 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Parity between co-offenders – Murder – Accessory after the fact and principal offender.

Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521], [3522]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  A J Hall
           Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Grant Tucker
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2012] TASCCA 14
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 14/2012
File No CCA 408/2012

SEAN TIMOTHY HUDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
PORTER J
WOOD J
19 December 2012

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 14/2012
File No CCA 408/2012

SEAN TIMOTHY HUDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
19 December 2012

This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Sean Hudson, and a man named Neville Whiting were jointly charged with murdering a man named Scott Rock in Launceston on or about 29 March 2011. They were tried together before Evans J. Whiting was found guilty of murder. The appellant was found not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder. He was subsequently indicted on a charge of unlawfully assaulting Scott Rock by punching him twice to the jaw. He pleaded guilty to that charge. In relation to the two crimes of assault and being an accessory after the fact to murder, Evans J convicted the appellant, sentenced him to 7½ years' imprisonment, and ordered that he be eligible for parole after serving 5½ years of that sentence. This is an appeal from those orders.

There are two grounds of appeal, as follows:

"1That the sentence of 7 ½ years imprisonment with a non parole period of 5 ½ years was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
2That the Learned Justice had no regard or insufficient regard to the principal [sic] of parity compared to the Applicant's co-accused Neville Lindsay Whiting."

Was the sentence manifestly excessive?

On the night of the murder, the appellant and Neville Whiting were visiting a woman named Teena Kelly at her home in Ravenswood. Scott Rock arrived and entered the residence. There was an argument. The events that followed, as recounted by the learned judge in his sentencing comments, were as follows:

"Scott Rock left the residence and walked away up the road. Sean Hudson followed Scott Rock and they continued to abuse each other. Neville Whiting followed Sean Hudson.
About 150 metres from Teena Kelly's home, Sean Hudson and Scott Rock came together face-to-face. Sean Hudson punched Scott Rock twice to the jaw and, on the…

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 Hudson v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Hudson v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 14
Case: [2012] TASCCA 14
Decision Date: 19 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hudson appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following his conviction as an accessory after the fact to murder. The appeal concerned the proportionality of his sentence in comparison to that of the principal offender.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed on Hudson was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the sentence received by the principal offender. The court was required to consider the principles of parity between co-offenders when assessing the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court reasoned that while parity is an important consideration, it is not an absolute rule. The sentencing judge had correctly identified the differences in the offenders' roles, culpability, and circumstances. The principal offender had committed the murder, whereas Hudson's role was to assist in concealing the crime and disposing of the body. However, the court found that Hudson's actions were significant and demonstrated a high degree of moral culpability. The sentencing judge had properly weighed these factors and arrived at a sentence that was not demonstrably excessive or unjust.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.