Mayne v Tasmania - [2017] TASSC 38

[2017] TASSC 38

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Mayne v Tasmania [2017] TASSC 38

PARTIES:  MAYNE, Nathan Patrick
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1375/2017
DELIVERED ON:  29 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  20 June 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Sentencing – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Offence of common assault involving smothering complainant with pillow for short duration – Sentence of seven months' imprisonment not manifestly excessive.

Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), s 35(1).
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  P Monk
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 38
Number of paragraphs: 45

Serial No 38/2017
File No 1375/2017

NATHAN PATRICK MAYNE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

29 June 2017

The applicant, Nathan Patrick Mayne, pleaded guilty on 2 May 2017 in the Launceston Magistrates Court to an offence of common assault contrary to s 35(1) of the Police Offences Act 1935. The particulars of the charge are that "on the 26^th January, 2017 …, [he unlawfully assaulted] Jacqueline Jacinta Spotswood by smothering her face with a pillow".
He was sentenced by Magistrate P F Dixon to a term of seven months' imprisonment, backdated to 22 February 2017, to take account of time spent in custody on remand. The applicant seeks a review of his sentence on the ground that it is "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances".

The offending

The facts of offending provided to the learned magistrate are as follows:
"The defendant and the complainant, Ms Jacqueline Spotswood have been in an on-and-off again relationship for about eight years, although currently they've barely lived together and are not sharing living expenses. They do have one child together …
On 26 January 2017 the defendant and complainant had an argument when the defendant accused the complainant of being unfaithful. The complainant went back to her home at Caswell Street once the argument ended, and she went to bed at about 5.00 pm. While in bed the complainant sent a text message to the defendant saying she was not feeling well, and needed help.
The defendant arrived at the home sometime after dark and was let inside the house by the complainant. A short time later the argument about the complainant being unfaithful has started up again, and the defendant began searching the house presumably looking for another person. Police have arrived at the house for an unrelated matter that occurred earlier that day, and police clamped the complainant's vehicle and then left the address.
The complainant then yelled at the defendant about getting her vehicle clamped. The defendant resumed searching the house while the complainant decided to go back to bed because she was still feeling unwell. The argument between the parties continued and the defendant has gotten on top…

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 Mayne v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Mayne v Tasmania [2017] TASSC 38
Case: [2017] TASSC 38
Decision Date: 29 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, the case of Mayne v Tasmania concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant for an offence of common assault. The appellant had smothering the complainant with a pillow for a brief period of time. The appeal was based on the argument that the sentence of seven months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appellant contended that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the appropriate punishment for the crime committed. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether it took into account all relevant factors.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court emphasised that while the offence was not severe in terms of physical harm or duration, it was a deliberate act of assault that caused significant distress to the complainant. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, the need for general deterrence, and the circumstances of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence. The court concluded that the sentence of seven months' imprisonment was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence and did not represent an abuse of the court's sentencing discretion.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of seven months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders