Legal Research
Cases
Kringle v Tasmania

Kringle v Tasmania

Case [2020] TASSC 39 31 July 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2020] TASSC 39
COURT:                  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:             Kringle v Tasmania [2020] TASSC 39
PARTIES:  KRINGLE, Jarod Lee
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:  LCA 506/2020
DELIVERED ON:  31 July 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  12 June 2020 and 3 July 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Particular offences – Miscellaneous offences and matters – Other offences – Corrections Act 1997 – Offence to bring an item into a prison that is not authorised – Meaning of "bring" – Intention to bring item into a prison an element of offence – Applicant arrested for breach of bail in possession of a knife and transferred to remand centre to be detained for court – Remand centre a prison – Applicant not informed to be taken to a prison – In light of prosecution facts plea of guilty was not unequivocal.

Corrections Act 1997 (Tas), s 24(1).
Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 (Tas), ss 13(1), and 16(2)(c).
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Rosas v Cahill [2013] NTSC 65, 235 A Crim R 451; Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47; Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; Marlow v The Queen [1990] Tas R 1, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2671]
Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Two offences of driving with illicit drug in oral fluid attracting four months and six months' imprisonment and individual sentences for other offending including unlicensed driving and breaches of bail – Individual sentences amounting to a total period of 14 months and 8 weeks' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months and 8 weeks cumulative to activated suspended sentence of four months – Applicant had prior convictions for driving with illicit drug in oral fluid but sentenced globally – Previously not had benefit of parole – Manifestly excessive.

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), ss 11 and 17(2A)(c).
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), s 6A.
Bonde v White [2017] TASSC 30, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
           Appellant:  K Baumeler
           Respondent:  V Dawkins
Solicitors:
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number:  [2020] TASSC 39
Number of paragraphs:  80
Serial No 39/2020
File No LCA 506/2020

JAROD LEE KRINGLE v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J
31 July 2020
1On 18 February 2020, Jarod Lee Kringle was sentenced by Magistrate R Webster to imprisonment for driving offences, an offence of unlawfully bring an unauthorised thing into a prison, breaches of bail and bail conditions. Additionally, his Honour activated a suspended sentence of imprisonment of four months. The cumulative terms amounted to a total of 18 months and 8 weeks, with a non-parole period of 13 months and 8 weeks. A notice to review was filed appealing the total term of imprisonment on five grounds:
1The learned magistrate erred in fact…

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 Kringle v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Kringle v Tasmania [2020] TASSC 39
Case: [2020] TASSC 39
Decision Date: 31 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kringle v Tasmania involved a dispute over the meaning of the term "bring" in the context of a criminal offence under the Corrections Act 1997. The applicant was arrested for breaching bail conditions and was found in possession of a knife. He was transferred to a remand centre to be detained for court. The remand centre was determined to be a prison under the Act. The applicant was not informed that he was being taken to a prison. Given the circumstances, the applicant's plea of guilty was not unequivocal.

The primary legal issue was whether the term "bring" in the statute required an intention to bring an item into a prison. The applicant argued that he had no intention to bring the knife into the remand centre, which was classified as a prison under the Act. The court had to determine if the prosecution needed to prove the applicant's intent as part of establishing the offence.

The court held that the term "bring" did indeed require the intention to bring an item into a prison. Given the facts presented, the court found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to bring the knife into the remand centre. Consequently, the applicant's plea of guilty could not be accepted as unequivocal. The court acquitted the applicant on the charge, emphasising the importance of intent in interpreting the statutory offence.

Orders