Legge v The Queen - [2002] TASSC 62

[2002] TASSC 62

CITATION: Legge v R [2002] TASSC 62

PARTIES:  LEGGE, Andrew Darrel
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 105/2001
DELIVERED ON:  11 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  3 September 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Other matters - Tasmania - Accessory after the fact of murder - Whether manifestly excessive - No tariff - Commercial transaction to destroy taxi in which murder had taken place.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [911]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  P A Warmbrunn
           Respondent:  A R Jacobs
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 62
Number of Paragraphs: 21

Serial No 62/2002
File No CCA 105/2001

ANDREW DARREL LEGGE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
SLICER J
BLOW J
11 September 2002

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 62/2002
File No CCA 105/2001

ANDREW DARREL LEGGE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
11 September 2002

The appellant and Simon Paul Deverell were indicted for the murder of Kim Anthony Bester. The two men were also indicted for setting fire to the taxi that the deceased was driving when he was murdered. The jury found Deverell guilty of murder and guilty of instigating the appellant to unlawfully set fire to the taxi. The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawfully setting fire to the taxi but not guilty to murder. The jury acquitted the appellant of murder, but convicted him of being an accessory after the fact of murder. For these two crimes, the learned sentencing judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for seven years. This appeal is brought against that sentence upon the sole ground that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

In order to get money for drugs, Deverell took a knife and engaged a taxi in the Glenorchy area. During the course of the journey, Deverell killed the driver with a single stab wound. He took the driver's wallet and coin dispenser. Deverell subsequently disposed of the body. There was no evidence upon which it could be found that the appellant had any part to play in these events.

About two hours after the deceased was murdered, Deverell went to a house at Dromedary where the appellant was present. Deverell told the appellant that he needed help to get rid of the motor vehicle. The appellant agreed with Deverell to burn the taxi in return for payment of $1,000. At that time, or shortly afterwards, the appellant knew that Deverell had murdered the driver of the taxi and that he wanted to destroy evidence that might incriminate him in the commission of the crime.

The appellant drove the taxi about a kilometre south of the Bowen Bridge and there dowsed it in petrol and set fire to it.

The appellant was 33…

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 Legge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Legge v The Queen [2002] TASSC 62
Case: [2002] TASSC 62
Decision Date: 11 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrew Darrel Legge appealed against his sentence of seven years' imprisonment imposed for being an accessory after the fact of murder and for unlawfully setting fire to property. Legge was convicted of these offences in relation to the murder of Kim Anthony Bester, who was stabbed to death by Simon Paul Deverell, who then asked Legge to burn the taxi in which the murder took place. Legge drove the taxi to a remote location and set it on fire in return for $1,000. The appeal was brought on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's role in the crime. The court found that the appellant's actions were driven by personal gain and that he showed no remorse for his conduct. The court concluded that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was not excessive and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed and the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was upheld. The court found that the appellant's actions were driven by personal gain and that he showed no remorse for his conduct. The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's role in the crime. The court concluded that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was not excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders