Jones v Gleeson - [2021] TASSC 63

[2021] TASSC 63

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Jones v Gleeson [2021] TASSC 63

PARTIES:  JONES, Jason
  v
  GLEESON, Beven John

FILE NO:  1152/2021
DELIVERED ON:  20 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16, 20 December 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentencing orders – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Evading police – Evading police (aggravated circumstances).

Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (Tas), s 11A.
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s 110A.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  Ms E Belonogoff
             Respondent:  Ms O Jenkins
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Rae & Partners

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 63
Number of paragraphs: 38

Serial No 63/2021
File No 1152/2021

SENIOR SERGEANT JASON JONES v BEVEN JOHN GLEESON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

20 December 2021

The applicant has brought a motion to review seeking to appeal sentences imposed by Magistrate S Cure in the Launceston Magistrates Court on 30 April 2021, and corrected by her Honour on 9 July 2021. The respondent, Beven John Gleeson, had pleaded guilty to four charges across three complaints involving two charges of motor vehicle stealing, one charge of evading police and one charge of evading police (aggravated circumstances). The effect of the sentences he received was five months' imprisonment and licence disqualification for two years and eight months. He had served the term of imprisonment by 24 July 2021.
There are three grounds of review, the first ground having been abandoned. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 are as follows:
"1   In relation to complaint 30822/2021, charge 1 (evading police) the learned Magistrate erred in law in imposing a disqualification period of 6 months.
2   In relation to complaint 30822/2021 charge 1 (evading police), the learned Magistrate erred in law in imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances of the case.
3   In relation to complaint 30825/2021 charge 1 (evading police (aggravated circumstances)), the learned Magistrate erred in law in imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances of the case."

The offending

As mentioned, there are three complaints and four charges. The facts presented to the learned magistrate are as follows.
14 February 2021, evading police (complaint 30822/2021):
An aggravated burglary occurred at Lilydale Road, Underwood on 3 February 2021. During that burglary a 2007 blue Toyota Kluger was stolen from the address. On 14 February 2021 at approximately 2:10pm police identified the stolen vehicle travelling west on Quarantine Road. The vehicle stopped at the intersection. Police stopped behind the vehicle. The vehicle then accelerated through a red light, conducted a U-turn into the opposite lane, and accelerated back on Quarantine Road towards St Leonards. Police activated their emergency lights and sirens and followed the vehicle. The respondent was observed by police as the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle overtook another vehicle at high speed, crossing…

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 Jones v Gleeson

Details

AGLC: Jones v Gleeson [2021] TASSC 63
Case: [2021] TASSC 63
Decision Date: 20 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Gleeson, the matter was heard before the Court of Appeal in Tasmania. The defendant, Jones, was appealing against a decision made by the Magistrates Court in relation to a sentence imposed for evading police under aggravated circumstances. The Magistrate had imposed a sentence that Jones considered manifestly inadequate, prompting the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and if the Magistrates Court had erred in its assessment of the appropriate penalty for the offence committed. The court was required to examine the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the offence of evading police under aggravated circumstances, and to determine whether the sentence imposed fell outside the range of acceptable outcomes.

The Court of Appeal, upon reviewing the sentencing principles and the nature of the offence, found that the Magistrates Court had indeed erred in its assessment. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the circumstances of the offence. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the seriousness of evading police under aggravated circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentencing orders be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court did not impose a specific sentence but rather directed that the Magistrates Court consider the appropriate penalty in light of the court's findings.

Orders