Legal Research
Cases
Parker v Stebbings

Parker v Stebbings

Case [2017] TASSC 28 5 May 2017

Appeal

Sentencing

Stalking

Driving Under Influence

Suspended Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2017] TASSC 28

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Parker v Stebbings [2017] TASSC 28

PARTIES:   PARKER, John
  v
  STEBBINGS, Aaron John

FILE NO:   LCA 3855/2016
DELIVERED ON:  5 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  28 April 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Sentence and penalty –Stalking, drive with illicit drugs in blood and activated suspended sentence for trafficking – Total sentence of eight months' imprisonment with four months suspended manifestly inadequate.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 192.
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), s 6A(1).
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 27.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Non-custodial orders – Suspended sentence of imprisonment – Breach of conditions of suspension and sentence following breach – Whether "unjust" to activate suspended sentences.

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 27.
Tanner v Brown [2011] TASSC 59; Parker v Bessell [2012] TASSC 78, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3388]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  E Bill
             Respondent:  In person
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 28
Number of paragraphs: 61

Serial No 28/2017
File No LCA 3855/2016

JOHN PARKER v AARON JOHN STEBBINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

5 May 2017

The applicant, who is a police officer, moves to review sentencing orders made on 8 December 2016 by magistrate Mr R Marron, concerning the respondent, Aaron Stebbings.
There are four grounds of appeal. The first ground is that the learned magistrate imposed a sentence which was manifestly inadequate. Although the ground of appeal refers to a single sentence, a number of sentencing orders were made. As will become apparent, some of the orders were sentences imposed by his Honour on complaints before him at first instance. Other orders were made on application under the Sentencing Act 1997 (the Act), s 27, following breach by the respondent of the conditions of two suspended sentences. The combined result of the various orders was the imposition of a total effective term of imprisonment of eight months from 13 November 2016. The sentencing magistrate made a further order suspending four months of that effective term. The remaining grounds assert that the learned magistrate erred by not correctly addressing the applications concerning the suspended sentences and by failing to fully activate one of the suspended sentences.
For the following reasons the motion to review should succeed. The sentencing orders, in their total effect, amounted to a manifestly inadequate response to the respondent's criminal conduct as asserted in the first ground. For the most part, the errors asserted as to the suspended sentences are also established.

The offending

The respondent pleaded guilty to 19 offences committed between 3 November 2014 and 18 December 2015 charged across 12 complaints. I will provide a more detailed explanation of the circumstances of the offences in due course. The respondent pleaded guilty to abusing two…

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 Stebbings

Details

AGLC: Parker v Stebbings [2017] TASSC 28
Case: [2017] TASSC 28
Decision Date: 5 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parker v Stebbings, the appellant sought a review of a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The respondent was convicted of stalking, driving with illicit drugs in their blood, and activating a suspended sentence for trafficking. The sentence imposed was eight months imprisonment, with four months suspended. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, which had jurisdiction to review the sentence.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the sentence was not sufficient to adequately address the severity of the respondent's criminal behaviour. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence and specific deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the respondent had a significant criminal history and had committed serious offences. The court considered that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences or provide sufficient deterrence. The court found that the sentence did not provide adequate punishment for the respondent's criminal behaviour and was not sufficient to deter the respondent or others from committing similar offences. The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania for resentencing.

The court did not make any final orders in this appeal. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania for resentencing. The court did not make any orders in relation to costs.

Orders