Leaman v Tasmania - [2016] TASSC 36

[2016] TASSC 36

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Leaman v Tasmania [2016] TASSC 36

PARTIES: LEAMAN, Peter David

v
STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  208/2016
DELIVERED ON:  27 July 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1 July 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Sentencing – Whether manifestly excessive – Driving and dishonesty offences – Global sentence imposed on numerous complaints – Long history of persistent offending of similar nature - Offending commenced shortly after release from custody.

Barrett v Wilson [2015] TASSC 3, (2015) 69 MVR 333, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:                  N/A
             Respondent:              S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:                  Unrepresented
             Respondent:              Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 36
Number of paragraphs: 13

Serial No 36/2016
File No 208/2016

PETER DAVID LEAMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

27 July 2016

On 11 November 2015, the applicant, Peter David Leaman, was sentenced by Magistrate Mollard on his plea of guilty to numerous offences. His Honour imposed global sentences totalling 29 months' imprisonment, and ordered the applicant be eligible for parole after serving 16 months of that total. The sentence was backdated to 13 October 2015. On 21 January 2016, a notice to review that sentence on the sole ground that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case was filed in this Court on behalf of the applicant by the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania (the Commission).
The Commission subsequently filed papers in support of the application, but did no more. The matter was brought on for a directions hearing at which counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant at the request of the Commission. Directions were made for the filing of contentions by each party. That directions hearing was held on 6 June 2016. On 8 June, the Court received a letter from the Commission advising that, due to an error, it had not been made clear that there was no grant of aid for the applicant beyond the preparation and filing of the notice to review and judge’s papers. The Court was advised that someone from the Commission would contact the applicant to tell him that.
It was assumed by the Court this had been done. The respondent's submissions were filed, but nothing was received from the applicant. The matter was brought on for hearing. The applicant was unrepresented, and did not seem to believe he had been told by the Commission that he had no aid. He was advised of what the Court had been told. The applicant was given the option of adjourning the matter so that he could follow up issues with the Commission, or proceeding on his own. He indicated that he had no idea what to do. He was given an opportunity to talk to his family about how he should proceed, and he did so. He then…

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 Leaman v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Leaman v Tasmania [2016] TASSC 36
Case: [2016] TASSC 36
Decision Date: 27 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leaman v Tasmania is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a Magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The appellant, Leaman, was found guilty of various charges including driving offences and dishonesty offences. The appellant sought a review of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by a District Court Judge who was tasked with determining whether the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and, if so, whether it should be varied.

The legal issue at hand was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant’s criminal history. The appellant's legal team argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe considering the totality of the charges and the appellant's background of persistent offending. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate, given the appellant’s long history of similar offences and the fact that the offending began shortly after the appellant's release from custody.

The Court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The District Court Judge considered the totality of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the fact that the offending began shortly after release from custody. The Judge concluded that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The Judge varied the sentence to a term that was considered more commensurate with the offences and the appellant's history.

The Court varied the sentence imposed by the Magistrate, reducing the overall term of imprisonment. The new sentence was deemed to be more appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

Orders