Maney v White - [2007] TASSC 7

[2007] TASSC 7

CITATION: Maney v White [2007] TASSC 7

PARTIES:  MANEY, Corey Phillip
  v
  WHITE, Sergeant Graham Ross

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 31/2006
DELIVERED ON:  27 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 February 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Factual basis of sentence – Proof and evidence – Pre-sentence reports and police reports – Imprisonment of youthful offender before receipt of requested pre-sentence report.

James v Turner [2006] TASSC 54; Lahey v Sanderson [1959] Tas SR 17; Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] 28 NSWLR 282, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [824]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  E Hughes
           Respondent:  S J Bender
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 7
Number of paragraphs: 9

Serial No 7/2007
File No LCA 31/2006

COREY PHILLIP MANEY v SERGEANT GRAHAM ROSS WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

27 February 2007

On 15 September 2006 the applicant, Corey Maney, was convicted by Magistrate P H Wilson on two charges of common assault, the particulars of the charges being that on 28 May 2005 the applicant punched Alexander Hart and Julie Ann Cocca in the head. With respect to these convictions, on 11 October 2006, the learned magistrate sentenced the applicant to four months' imprisonment to date from 15 September 2006 and ordered that the applicant be subject to probation for twelve months. The applicant appeals against that sentence on the ground that the learned magistrate concluded that it was appropriate to expose the applicant to the potentially corrupting influence of imprisonment before receiving a pre-sentence report that he had directed should be provided.

The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges and was not represented on their hearing by a lawyer. The basis for his defence to the charges does not emerge from the transcript of the hearing. He asked no questions that challenged the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he neither gave nor elicited evidence.

In summary, the evidence was that at around 11.30pm on 28 May 2005, a group of about 15 people left a bowling complex at Kings Meadows. The group included Julie Cocca and her husband and the intention was that the members of the group would go to the Cocca's home. As taxis became available, members of the group departed for the Cocca's residence. Ms Cocca, Graeme Dearman, Dee-Ann Porro and Alexander Hart were amongst those still waiting for a taxi when the applicant exited the bowling alley in an intoxicated and agitated state. Mr Hart was also intoxicated. He described himself as being extremely drunk and stumbling about. He had no recall of what occurred save for some swear words, something dramatic happening and being at the Cocca's residence with a sore nose and blood around the inside of his nostrils. He said that…

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 Maney v White

Details

AGLC: Maney v White [2007] TASSC 7
Case: [2007] TASSC 7
Decision Date: 27 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maney v White involved the appellant, Maney, appealing against the severity of his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of serious criminal offences, including armed robbery and assault. The central issue in the appeal was the sufficiency and appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, particularly whether the trial judge took into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's youth and the availability of a pre-sentence report.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in imposing a lengthy sentence on the appellant without waiting for the completion of a requested pre-sentence report. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately consider his youth and potential for rehabilitation, as the pre-sentence report had not been provided at the time of sentencing. The court was required to determine whether the failure to await the pre-sentence report constituted a significant error that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in imposing the sentence. It was held that while the pre-sentence report is a valuable tool in sentencing, its absence does not necessarily render a sentence unlawful. The trial judge had before them a comprehensive police report and had considered the appellant's age and background. The court emphasised that the trial judge is entitled to form an opinion based on the available evidence, and the absence of a pre-sentence report alone does not justify a reduction in sentence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court did not make any further orders beyond affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant's conviction and the severity of the sentence were upheld, with the court finding no basis for altering the sentence based on the grounds of the appeal.

Orders