MRTC v Tasmania Police - [2024] TASSC 14

[2024] TASSC 14

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	MRTC v Tasmania Police [2024] TASSC 14
PARTIES:	MRTC
v
TASMANIA POLICE
FILE NO:	LCA 2821/2023
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing of juveniles – Relevant factors – General principles – Objectives and principles under Youth Justice Act 1997 – Court required to specify earliest release date for operative

part of partially suspended sentence of detention.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3433].

Legislation:

Justices Act 1959
Sentencing Act 1997

Youth Justice Act 1997

Cases Cited:

Evans v Job [2018] TASFC 3
LWR v Lusted [2009] TASSC 3
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

TAP v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 5

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: H Goss
Respondent: D Laws

Solicitors:

Applicant: Tasmania Legal Aid
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 14
Number of paragraphs:	21

Serial No 14/2024

File No LCA 2821/2023

MRTC v TASMANIA POLICE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
27 March 2024

1 This review turns on a specific aspect of the operation of the Youth Justice Act 1997 (the Act). In particular, the question which arises is whether in the case of a sentence of a partially suspended period of detention, s 89A requires the court to specify an earliest release date in respect of the operative period of detention, that is that part of the detention period which has not been suspended. If so, the youth would be released under a supervised release order after serving 50% or 3 months, whichever is longer, of the operative part of the order. If not, the youth would be detained for the entire period, that is until release at the commencement of the suspended part of the order.
2 The background of this matter is as follows. The applicant is a 16 year old youth with a history of offending. On 29 June 2023, he came before Magistrate Brown in respect of a number of offences. The commission of those offences breached the conditions of an earlier suspended detention order. His Honour decided to activate four months of the suspended period of detention, and to defer sentence in respect of the offences which were before him. He backdated the four month period of detention to 6 April 2023 and, in accordance with s 89A of the Act specified an earliest release date of 6 July 2023. It seems that the applicant was released from detention on that date.
3 After his release, the applicant committed further offences. These offences were of a serious nature. One involved an aggravated burglary of a home while the occupants were present. The applicant assaulted one of the occupants when that person attempted to apprehend him. He also committed the burglary of a service station in order to steal property, including cigarettes, as well as a number of other offences. The applicant was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MRTC v Tasmania Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] TASSC 14
Decision Date: 27 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between the Minister for the Tasmanian Department of Justice and the Tasmania Police came before the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from the sentencing of a juvenile offender, where the court was required to determine the appropriate custodial sentence and specify the earliest release date for the operative of the sentence. The respondent, Tasmania Police, argued that the sentence imposed by the court was too lenient and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Minister for the Tasmanian Department of Justice, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the objectives and principles of youth justice as outlined in the Youth Justice Act 1997.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the relevant factors that should be taken into account when sentencing a juvenile offender, the objectives and principles of youth justice, and the appropriate custodial sentence for the offence. The court was also required to specify the earliest release date for the operative of the sentence, as required by the Youth Justice Act 1997.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the sentencing of juvenile offenders requires a different approach to that of adult offenders. The court emphasised that the primary objective of youth justice is to rehabilitate the offender and prevent reoffending. The court also noted that the principles of youth justice, such as the need for proportionality, accountability, and respect for human dignity, must be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, taking into account the relevant factors and the objectives and principles of youth justice. The court also specified the earliest release date for the operative of the sentence, as required by the Youth Justice Act 1997.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court also specified the earliest release date for the operative of the sentence, which was in accordance with the Youth Justice Act 1997. The court held that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the relevant factors and the objectives and principles of youth justice.

Orders