Mannie v Hibble - [2006] TASSC 55

[2006] TASSC 55

CITATION: Mannie v Hibble [2006] TASSC 55

PARTIES:  MANNIE, Phillip John
  v
  HIBBLE, Acting Sergeant Kim

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 14/2006
DELIVERED ON:  7 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  28 June 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Purpose of sentence – Rehabilitation.

Lahey v Sanderson [1959] Tas SR 17, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [828]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M Brett
             Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Douglas & Collins
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 55
Number of paragraphs: 12

Serial No 55/2006
File No LCA 14/2006

PHILLIP JOHN MANNIE v ACTING SERGEANT KIM HIBBLE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

7 July 2006

On 11 May 2006, the applicant was sentenced in the court of petty sessions upon his plea of guilty to one charge of common assault, in that he unlawfully assaulted Heath Wyatt by punching him to the face. The sentence imposed was six months' imprisonment, with four months suspended on condition that the applicant be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months. The applicant has filed a notice to review, appealing against the sentence.

Very little is known of the assault. It occurred on a road at Deloraine at 3am on 1 January 2006. The applicant, who was 19 years of age, had been celebrating New Year's eve at a hotel. He was extremely intoxicated and was walking home. He and the complainant, a man of 29 years of age, were friendly acquaintances. The circumstances of their chance meeting on the road that night are not known. The complainant has no relevant recall. The learned magistrate was not told where the complainant had been earlier that night, whether the complainant had been drinking or why he was on the road at 3am that morning. The learned magistrate was told that when the applicant and the complainant met, there was a verbal argument, it is not known what about, the applicant punched the complainant once to the face, it is not known why, and the complainant fell flat on his back onto the road. The applicant dragged the complainant to the safety of the side of the road because a car was coming and he stayed with the complainant until help arrived. When interviewed by police, the applicant made admissions to the effect of the above and said that he could not recall what the argument was about or why he punched the complainant.

The learned magistrate gave comprehensive reasons for the sentence that he imposed on the applicant. He began by noting that the offence was out of character and that there was nothing of a violent nature in the applicant’s record of prior convictions. (The record involved offences of dishonesty and traffic offences; the applicant had not previously been imprisoned.) The learned magistrate had before him a…

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 Mannie v Hibble

Details

AGLC: Mannie v Hibble [2006] TASSC 55
Case: [2006] TASSC 55
Decision Date: 7 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mannie v Hibble was a case before the court in which the defendant appealed against his sentence for a criminal offence. The defendant was convicted of a serious crime and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether the court had adequately considered the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to rehabilitation. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence imposed and determining whether the primary judge had erred in his approach to sentencing.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant legislation and case law. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the judge had taken into account the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, retribution, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The defendant's legal team argued that the sentence was excessive and that the judge had not adequately weighed the importance of rehabilitation in light of the defendant's prospects for reform and reintegration into society.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but emphasised the importance of considering all relevant sentencing principles. The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to sufficiently address the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and had not adequately balanced this against other sentencing considerations. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was too severe given the weight that should have been given to the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the original sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the proper application of sentencing principles.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The court directed that the resentencing judge should take into account all relevant sentencing principles, with particular emphasis on the importance of rehabilitation, and should impose a sentence that appropriately reflected these considerations.

Orders