Legal Research
Cases
Parker v Hall

Parker v Hall

Case [2015] TASSC 60 10 December 2015

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2015] TASSC 60

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60

PARTIES:  PARKER, John (Senior Sergeant)
  v
  HALL, Adrian John

FILE NO:  712/2014
DELIVERED ON:  10 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  9 October 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas), s 35.
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), ss 7(f), 9, 10, 58, 59, 60.
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), ss 110.
Lyons v Bakes [2015] TASSC 38, followed.
Attorney-General v Smith [2002] TASSC 10; Badcock v White [2004] TASSC 59, considered.
Aus Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Nicholson
             Respondent:  G Richardson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  G Richardson

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 60
Number of paragraphs: 46

Serial No 60/2015
File No 712/2014

SENIOR SERGEANT JOHN PARKER v ADRIAN JOHN HALL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

10 December 2015

An application has been brought to review a sentence imposed upon the respondent, Adrian John Hall, on 21 July 2014 by the then learned Chief Magistrate Mr M Hill. The respondent had been found guilty of six offences committed in the period 25 December 2012 to 3 May 2013: four breaches of a police family violence order and two breaches of an interim family violence order contrary to s35(1) of the Family Violence Act 2004. The learned Chief Magistrate made a sentencing order pursuant to s 7(f) of the Sentencing Act 1997, adjourning the charges without conviction for 12 months on condition that the respondent enter into an undertaking to be of good behaviour and commit no similar offences during that time, and that the respondent was to appear before the court if called upon during that time.
The single ground of review is that the learned Chief Magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case.
The context of the contraventions was that the respondent and the complainant had been in a relationship, described by the respondent as an "on-off" relationship, for around two years, and had jointly purchased a house. A police family violence order was made on 24 December 2012. The order included a condition that the respondent was not to approach within 50 metres, or contact directly or indirectly, the complainant, the complainant, including by telephone, email, facsimile, letter, SMS text message or any other form of electronic communication. The order had effect from 24 December 2012. Soon after, the respondent contravened that order, and later contravened the order on three further occasions. The contraventions particularised in the charges and found proved by the Chief Magistrate, and his findings about the facts are as set out below.
1 On 25 December 2012 at Launceston in Tasmania the respondent contravened the order, in that he telephoned the complainant.
Late on…

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 Parker v Hall

Details

AGLC: Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60
Case: [2015] TASSC 60
Decision Date: 10 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parker v Hall, the appellant, Mr Parker, sought an appeal against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The respondent, Mr Hall, had been found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced by the lower court. The appeal was heard in the higher court, where the appellant contended that the punishment was unduly harsh given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Mr Parker was manifestly excessive, warranting a reduction or the grant of a new trial. The court had to consider the principles guiding sentencing and whether the lower court had appropriately exercised its discretion. The appellant argued that the sentence did not align with the principles of justice and proportionality, as it was disproportionately severe compared to similar cases.

The court examined the sentencing decision and the rationale provided by the lower court. It assessed whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate punishments for the offence committed. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the decision of the lower court, finding no grounds for interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

No further orders were made by the court, and the decision stood as delivered.

Orders