Legal Research
Cases
Illingworth v Richardson

Illingworth v Richardson

Case [2025] TASSC 60 3 November 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 60

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Illingworth v Richardson [2025] TASSC 60
PARTIES:	ILLINGWORTH, Kalysta Joy
v
RICHARDSON, Constable Jennie
FILE NO:	1755/2024
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	7 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Cuthbertson J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Appeal against sentence – Applicant alleged sentence manifestly excessive – Magistrate imposed six weeks imprisonment wholly suspended together with a 12 month community correction order for shoplifting and trespass offences – Applicant had just turned 18 years old – Applicant had no prior convictions, but had pleaded guilty to a number of similar offences committed when she was 16 and 17 years old – Applicant pending sentence on youth matters when committed new offences – Applicant alleged insufficient weight given to the applicant's age, pleas of guilty and deprived background – Applicant alleged magistrate erred in imposing a custodial sentence where applicant had not yet been sentenced by a court – A custodial sentence was outside the bounds of the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion in the circumstances of the case – Motion to review allowed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:

Police Offences Act 1935

Sentencing Act 1997

Cases:

Banfield v Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 1
Brown v Moore [2021] TASSC 3
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions v Broadby, Cockshutt and Woolley [2010] TASCCA 13; 20 Tas R 399
DPP v King [2020] TASCCA 8; 32 Tas R 156
Lahey v Sanderson [1959] Tas SR 17
Percy v R [1975] Tas SR 62
R v Mathers and Rogers [1959] Tas SR 17
R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111
Turner v Davis Serial No A87/1977
Watson v Woodgate [2025] TASSC 26

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: A Van der Meer
Respondent: A Bassett

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 60
Number of paragraphs:	41

Serial No 60/2025 File No 1755/2024

KALYSTA JOY ILLINGWORTH v CONSTABLE JENNIE RICHARDSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CUTHBERTSON J
3 November 2025

1 This is a motion to review a sentence imposed upon the applicant by Magistrate C Webster on 29 May 2024. The applicant pleaded guilty on that date to four counts of stealing and three counts of trespass. A sentence of six weeks' imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that for a period of two years the applicant not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment and be of good behaviour was imposed. A 12 month community correction order was also imposed. The sole ground of the motion to review is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The complaint of manifest excess is directed at the suspended sentence only.
2 The principles which apply to a motion to review a sentence on the ground of manifest excess are well-settled. They were recently summarised by Pearce J in Watson…

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 Illingworth v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Illingworth v Richardson [2025] TASSC 60
Case: [2025] TASSC 60
Decision Date: 3 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Illingworth v Richardson involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by a Magistrate in Tasmania. The applicant, who had just turned 18 years old, was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment wholly suspended together with a 12-month community correction order for shoplifting and trespass offences. The applicant had no prior convictions but had pleaded guilty to similar offences when she was 16 and 17 years old. At the time of committing the new offences, the applicant was awaiting sentencing on youth matters. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the Magistrate had not sufficiently considered her age, pleas of guilty, and deprived background. The applicant also contended that a custodial sentence was inappropriate because she had not yet been sentenced by a court for the previous offences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the Magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering the applicant's age, pleas of guilty, and deprived background. The court had to determine if the sentence fell outside the bounds of the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The applicant contended that a custodial sentence was inappropriate in the circumstances, given her age and the fact that she had not yet been sentenced for the previous offences.

The court reviewed the matter and allowed the motion to review. The court found that the Magistrate had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's age, pleas of guilty, and deprived background. The court also found that the Magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering that the applicant had not yet been sentenced by a court for the previous offences. The court held that a custodial sentence was outside the bounds of the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion in the circumstances of the case.

The court allowed the motion to review and quashed the sentence. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing, with directions to take into account the applicant's age, pleas of guilty, and deprived background. The court emphasised the importance of considering these factors when imposing a sentence on a young person with no prior convictions who has already pleaded guilty to similar offences.

Orders