Lockwood v Tasmania

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.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.