Parker v Keefe - [2017] TASSC 17

[2017] TASSC 17

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Parker v Keefe [2017] TASSC 17

PARTIES:  PARKER, John
  v
  KEEFE, Troy Andrew

FILE NO:  LCA 3846/2016
DELIVERED ON:  24 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  22 March 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Common assault – Probation order for 12 months not manifestly inadequate.

Police Offences Act1935 (Tas), s 35.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Sentence and penalty – Common assault – Probation order for 12 months not manifestly inadequate.

Police Offences Act1935 (Tas), s 35.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  L Pennington
             Respondent:  F McCracken
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Grant Tucker

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 17
Number of paragraphs: 19

Serial No 17/2017
File No LCA 3846/2016

JOHN PARKER v TROY ANDREW KEEFE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

24 March 2017

This is a prosecution motion to review a sentencing order made by magistrate Ms S Cure. The applicant is a police officer. The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of common assault and one count of failing to comply with the direction of a police officer. On 9 December 2016 the sentencing magistrate convicted the respondent on each count. Her Honour imposed one sentence, a probation order for 12 months with special conditions.
The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.

The offences

At about 2am on 26 March 2016, the respondent, aged 40, was at a hotel in Launceston with his son Ashley Cashion, aged 21, and a third male. The complainant, Anthony Crothers, was at the hotel at the same time. The man with Mr Cashion had some interaction with a female, whose husband also happened to be there. This resulted in an acrimonious confrontation between the husband and that man. Under the mistaken impression that Mr Crothers was the person who was, or had been, in an altercation with the man he was with, Mr Cashion approached and punched Mr Crothers. After Mr Cashion was separated from Mr Crothers, the respondent somehow came to believe that Mr Crothers had assaulted his son. He stepped in and also assaulted Mr Crothers, ceasing only when he was restrained by other hotel patrons. The respondent was taken outside but continued to behave in an aggressive and confrontational manner, pushing and shoving and yelling abuse. When the police arrived and saw the way the respondent was behaving they directed him to leave. He failed to comply with the direction. Instead, he attempted to break away and return to the area of conflict. He was arrested. Before committing the assault the respondent had consumed a significant amount of alcohol over "quite some time" and was intoxicated.
From the transcript of the sentencing hearing…

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 Keefe

Details

AGLC: Parker v Keefe [2017] TASSC 17
Case: [2017] TASSC 17
Decision Date: 24 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Parker, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. Parker was found guilty of common assault and was sentenced to a 12-month probation order. The respondent, Keefe, maintained that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant interference.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive. This involved assessing the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the objectives of sentencing. The court considered whether the sentence was so lenient that it could not be justified in light of the offence's gravity and the principles of justice.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. It emphasised the importance of discretion in sentencing, noting that the Magistrates' Court had considered the appropriate factors in determining the sentence. The court found that the probation order was a suitable and proportionate response to the offence, taking into account the nature of the assault and Parker's personal circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders. The sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria was affirmed, and Parker's appeal was dismissed.

Orders