Legal Research
Cases
Moltoni v Tasmania

Moltoni v Tasmania

Case [2025] TASSC 50 8 October 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 50

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Moltoni v Tasmania [2025] TASSC 50
PARTIES:	MOLTONI, Jake Paul
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	1541/2025
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	24 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Cuthbertson J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentence – Multiple offences including firearms offences – Totality principle – Non-parole period imposed exceeded minimum – Sentence of 30 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:
Criminal Code 1924 (Tas)
Criminal Code Amendment (Aggravated Burglary) Bill 1997 (Tas)
Firearms Act 1996 (Tas)

Sentencing Act 1999 (Tas)

Cases:
Brennan v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 7
Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; 169 CLR 525
Butt v State of Tasmania [2018] TASSC 3
Carr v The Queen [2002] TASSC 60, 11 Tas R 362
Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; 54 ALR 765
Dickson v State of Tasmania [2024] TASSC 24
Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5; 22 Tas R 448
Gill v The Queen serial no A34/1990
Pickrell v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 13
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48 NSWLR 327
Richman v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 18
TAB v Moore [2017] TASSC 65
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Watson v Woodgate [2025] TASSC 26
Williams v Parker [2016] TASSC 39

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: W Wu

Solicitors:

Respondent: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 50
Number of paragraphs:	47

Serial No 50/2025 File No 1541/2025

JAKE PAUL MOLTONI v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CUTHBERTSON J
8 October 2025

1             This is a motion to review a sentence imposed upon the applicant by Magistrate Hartnett on 9 April 2025. The applicant pleaded guilty on that date to a number of offences across four complaints. A single sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was imposed in relation to the charges punishable by imprisonment. That sentence was ordered to commence on 20 September 2024 to take into account the period of time the applicant had already spent in custody in relation to the matters. A 20 month non- parole period was also made. The applicant is eligible for release on parole from 20 May 2026.
2            The sole ground of the motion to review is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. A 12 month period of licence disqualification, commencing upon the applicant's release from custody, was also imposed in relation to two motor vehicle stealing charges. No complaint is made about the order for disqualification.
3            The principles which apply to a motion to review a sentence on the ground of manifest excess are well-settled. They were recently summarised by Pearce J in Watson v Woodgate [2025] TASSC…

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 Moltoni v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Moltoni v Tasmania [2025] TASSC 50
Case: [2025] TASSC 50
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Moltoni v Tasmania, the appellant challenged his sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court of Tasmania. The appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including charges related to firearms. He appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The primary point of contention was whether the total sentence, which included a non-parole period of 20 months for 30 months' imprisonment, was unjust in light of the totality principle and whether the non-parole period exceeded the minimum required for the nature of his crimes.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the non-parole period was unreasonable. The totality principle requires that the cumulative severity of the sentences for multiple offences be considered to avoid disproportionate punishment. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offences against the length of the sentence and the non-parole period. It was essential to assess whether the sentence fell within an acceptable range, considering the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences.

The court found that the sentence, including the non-parole period, was not manifestly excessive. It concluded that the total sentence of 30 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months was appropriate given the totality principle and the nature of the offences. The court found that the appellant's sentence did not exceed the minimum required for the severity of the crimes committed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders