Legal Research
Cases
Outtram v Tasmania

Outtram v Tasmania

Case [2007] TASSC 98 5 December 2007

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 98

CITATION: Outtram v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 98

PARTIES:  OUTTRAM, Michael Raymond
  v
  TASMANIA, STATE OF

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  445/2007
DELIVERED ON:  5 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  5 November 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Other matters - Accused person with hearing impairment – Allegedly faulty hearing loop.

Criminal Code (Tas), s402(1).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1002]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  C Rheinberger
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 98
Number of paragraphs: 62

Serial No 98/2007
File No 445/2007

MICHAEL RAYMOND OUTTRAM v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
BLOW J
TENNENT J
5 December 2007

Order of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 98/2007
File No 445/2007

MICHAEL RAYMOND OUTTRAM v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
5 December 2007

I have read the reasons for judgment of Blow J and I agree with them and the order that he proposes be made in this appeal.
File No 445/2007

MICHAEL RAYMOND OUTTRAM v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
5 December 2007

This is an appeal against two convictions — one for maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17 years, and one for rape. The charges related to different complainants, but were tried together. The appellant was represented by counsel at his trial, but was unrepresented on the hearing of this appeal.

The charge of maintaining a sexual relationship relates to a time when the appellant was living at Triabunna. He lived there from December 1988 to October 1989. The complainant to whom that charge relates ("A") was about 10 years old at that time. He gave evidence to the following effect:

·The appellant first sexually assaulted him in a shed at the rear of the appellant's home, by rubbing his erect penis on his bottom, and ejaculating on his back.
·On another occasion, he was with the appellant in a tent on a camping trip. The appellant took A's pants down, put baby oil all over A's back and buttocks, lay on top of him naked, rubbed his erect penis against him, and ejaculated onto his back.
·There was another incident when the appellant had anal intercourse with A on the front bench seat of a blue Holden sedan in a pine plantation. He took A's pants down, positioned him on his hands and knees facing the passenger window, started rubbing himself against A's bottom, and then inserted his penis. A asked him to stop, but he did not stop, and continued until he ejaculated.
·There was an act of oral intercourse on a boat at a jetty in Triabunna. The appellant took A down…

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 Outtram v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Outtram v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 98
Case: [2007] TASSC 98
Decision Date: 5 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Outtram v Tasmania involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of murder by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant contended that the trial was unfair due to a hearing loop that was not functioning correctly, which impaired his ability to hear the proceedings. The appellant argued that this constituted a miscarriage of justice. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the appellant's appeal against his conviction should be upheld on the basis that the trial was unfair due to the faulty hearing loop. The court was also required to determine whether the appellant's appeal against his sentence should be upheld.

The court considered whether the appellant's appeal against his conviction should be upheld on the basis that the trial was unfair due to the faulty hearing loop. The court held that the appellant's appeal against his conviction should not be upheld. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the faulty hearing loop resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the appellant's appeal against his sentence should be upheld. The court held that the appellant's appeal against his sentence should not be upheld. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was excessive or inappropriate.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and his appeal against his sentence. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the faulty hearing loop resulted in a miscarriage of justice or that the sentence was excessive or inappropriate. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.

Orders