SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:
Lockwood v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 6
PARTIES:
LOCKWOOD, Corey Adam
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:
1095/2023
DELIVERED ON:
17 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Hobart
HEARING DATE:
11 October 2024
JUDGMENT OF:
Estcourt J, Jago J, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Plea of guilty to one count of persistent family violence – Nineteen occasions of violence including nine involving rapes – Sentence of 17 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years – Appellant without substantial prior convictions – Disputed facts hearing required – Some evidence of reform after offending – Lengthy period between charge and resolution not attributable to appellant but no undue delay given complexity of facts and procedure – Little to mitigate the criminal conduct – Greater than minimum non-parole period a proper exercise of discretion given the gravity and duration of offending – Sentence imposed not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ESTCOURT J JAGO J PORTER AJ 17 June 2025
Order of the Court:
Appeal dismissed
No 6/2025
File No CCA 1095/2023
COREY ADAM LOCKWOOD v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ESTCOURT J 17 June 2025
1 I have read the reasons for judgment of Jago J with which I agree. They represent the reasons why I joined in the making of the order on 11 October 2024.
2 No 6/2025
File No CCA 1095/2023
COREY ADAM LOCKWOOD v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL JAGO J 17 June 2025
Introduction
2 This is an appeal against sentence. Following the hearing of oral submissions on behalf of the appellant (the respondent was not called upon), the Court dismissed the appeal. These are my reasons for joining in that order.
3 The appellant pleaded guilty to the crime of persistent family violence. The crimes related to the appellant's then wife. After a disputed facts hearing, Blow CJ made findings that the appellant had committed crimes that constituted unlawful family violence acts on a total of 19 occasions. On four of those occasions, Blow CJ found the appellant committed two such crimes and therefore sentenced him in respect to 23 crimes. Blow CJ found there were nine occasions when the appellant raped his wife, one occasion when…
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 Lockwood v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lockwood v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 6
Case
[2025] TASCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lockwood appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following a plea of guilty to one count of persistent family violence. The offending involved nineteen occasions of violence, including nine instances of rape. The sentence imposed was 17 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
The appeal raised the question of whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying interference by the appellate court. This required consideration of the appellant's circumstances, including a lack of substantial prior convictions, and any evidence of reform. The court also had to assess the impact of the lengthy period between the charge and the resolution of the matter, and whether the non-parole period was a proper exercise of discretion.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, constituted by Estcourt and Jago JJ and Porter AJ, found that while a disputed facts hearing was required and some evidence of reform was presented, these factors did not significantly mitigate the gravity and duration of the criminal conduct. The court noted that the delay in resolving the matter was not attributable to the appellant and was not undue given the complexity of the facts and procedure. The court concluded that the imposition of a non-parole period greater than the minimum was a proper exercise of discretion, and that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.