Legal Research
Cases
Parker v Tasmania

Parker v Tasmania

Case [2020] TASCCA 9 12 June 2020

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2020] TASCCA 9

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Parker v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 9

PARTIES:  PARKER, Leigh John
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  3333/2019
DELIVERED ON:  12 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  On the papers
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J, Pearce J, Geason J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for appeal – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Family violence offences – Exceptionally vulnerable complainant – Assault – Two counts of assault on terminally ill female partner – Unintended and unforeseen injury particularly serious – Sentence of four years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  Kim Baumeler
             Respondent:  Allison Shand
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Liverpool Chambers
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2020] TASCCA 9
Number of paragraphs: 44

Serial No 9/2020
File No CCA 3333/2019

LEIGH JOHN PARKER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
GEASON J
12 June 2020

Order of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 9/2020
File No CCA 3333/2019

LEIGH JOHN PARKER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
12 June 2020

The appeal and the background

This is a second sentencing appeal by the appellant, Leigh John Parker, in respect of two counts of assault on his female partner, to which he pleaded guilty. The plea of guilty to one of the counts was accepted by the Crown in satisfaction of a charge of causing grievous bodily harm.
The appellant was originally sentenced by Blow CJ on 28 November 2018 to imprisonment for four years and three months from 27 August 2018. His Honour ordered that the appellant not be eligible for parole until he had served two years and nine months of the sentence.
The appellant originally appealed against that sentence on only one ground, namely, that it was manifestly excessive. However, in the course of argument before the Court of Criminal Appeal in June and August 2019, leave was given to add two new grounds of appeal, challenging the manner in which the learned sentencing judge determined the factual basis for sentence.
The appellant contended that some of the circumstances of the crimes asserted by the Crown to the sentencing judge were materially different, in ways adverse to the appellant, as compared to the description of the circumstances of the crimes asserted by the appellant.
The Court of Criminal Appeal hearing that first appeal accepted that differences in the respective versions were not identified and resolved before the learned sentencing judge proceeded to sentence the appellant, substantially on the basis of the Crown statement of facts. The appeal was allowed and the sentence was quashed and the matter remitted to his Honour for re-sentencing.
After conducting a hearing as to the disputed facts, Blow CJ, on 18 December 2019, re-sentenced the…

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 Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Parker v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 9
Case: [2020] TASCCA 9
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Parker, following his conviction for two counts of assault against his terminally ill female partner. The appeal was heard by Estcourt J, Pearce J, and Geason J in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, namely four years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months, was manifestly excessive or inadequate in the circumstances of the offending.

The Court considered the nature of the assaults, noting that while the injury sustained by the complainant was unintended and unforeseen, it was particularly serious given her exceptionally vulnerable state due to her terminal illness. The judges applied principles of sentencing that require consideration of the gravity of the offence, the impact on the victim, and the need for general and specific deterrence. They found that the sentencing judge had properly weighed these factors, including the applicant's remorse and the mitigating circumstances, and had arrived at a sentence that was not demonstrably outside the range of appropriate sentences for such offences.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders