Murtagh v Tasmania - [2021] TASCCA 7

[2021] TASCCA 7

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Murtagh v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 7
PARTIES:	MURTAGH, Steven Craig
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 1172/2021
DELIVERED ON:	9 September 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Pearce J and Martin AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Head sentences totalling 4 years 6 months with eligibility for parole after 2 years 6 months – Activation of suspended sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for multiple offences – Cumulative sentence of 21 months for crimes of dishonesty – Cumulative sentence of 27 months on two counts of aggravated assault and related summary offences – Not manifestly

excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: P Monk
Respondent: J Shapiro

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid Commission
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2021] TASCCA 7
Number of paragraphs:	65

Serial No 7/2021

File No CCA 1172/2021

STEVEN CRAIG MURTAGH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BLOW CJ PEARCE J MARTIN AJ 9 September 2021
Order of the Court (26 August 2021)
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 7/2021

File No CCA 1172/2021

STEVEN CRAIG MURTAGH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ
9 September 2021

1 On 26 August 2021, this Court dismissed this appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date. I joined in the making of that order for the same reasons as those now stated by Martin AJ.
2 No 7/2021

File No CCA 1172/2021

STEVEN CRAIG MURTAGH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
PEARCE J
9 September 2021

2 I joined in the order dismissing this appeal for the same reasons as those expressed by
Martin AJ.
3 No 7/2021

File No CCA 1172/2021

STEVEN CRAIG MURTAGH v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL MARTIN AJ 9 September 2021
Introduction

3            The appellant pleaded guilty to a number of offences of dishonesty committed on 10-11 September 2019, and to two offences of aggravated assault committed against police officers on 19 September 2020. The latter crimes were committed in breach of a suspended sentence of six months imposed on 22 July 2020. In addition, the appellant pleaded guilty to four offences charged on complaint which arose from the same circumstances involving the two offences of aggravated assault.
4             Porter AJ activated the suspended six month term of imprisonment and imposed a single sentencing of imprisonment for 21 months in respect of the offences of dishonesty. His Honour ordered that the sentence of 21 months be served cumulatively upon the activated six month sentence.
5             In respect of the two offences of aggravated assault committed in September 2020, and the offences charged on complaint, Porter AJ imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 27…

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 Murtagh v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Murtagh v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 7
Case: [2021] TASCCA 7
Decision Date: 9 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murtagh appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal concerned the total head sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after 2 years and 6 months, which included the activation of a previously suspended sentence of 6 months. This was comprised of cumulative sentences of 21 months for crimes of dishonesty and 27 months for two counts of aggravated assault and related summary offences.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the imposed sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby providing grounds for interference on appeal.

The Court considered the totality of the offending conduct and the sentencing principles applicable to the various offences. It applied the principle that sentences should reflect the seriousness of the crimes, the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's prior record and the nature of the offences. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders