Parker v Tasmania - [2020] TASSC 57

[2020] TASSC 57

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Parker v Tasmania [2020] TASSC 57

PARTIES:  PARKER, Scott Cameron
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2067/2020
DELIVERED ON:  27 November 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 November 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Non-parole period or minimum term – Tasmania –Separate parole order required for each sentence of imprisonment.

Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (Tas), ss 11A(2A), 11A(3C).
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), ss 11, 92A(3).
Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas), s 17(4).
Harper v Gauden [2003] TASSC 66, 12 Tas R 57; Murray v State of Tasmania [2020] TASSC 1, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3379]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  L Flanagan
           Respondent:  V Dawkins
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs: 7

Serial No 57/2020
File No 2067/2020

SCOTT CAMERON PARKER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

27 November 2020

On 20 June 2018, Magistrate S Brown imposed sentence on the applicant in respect of multiple charges. The applicant had previously entered a plea of guilty to each charge. The charges were contained in 16 complaints and related to a variety of offences committed between 24 October 2017 and 8 March 2018. Some of the complaints related to an individual act of driving, and contained a number of charges arising from that driving. Of those, six complaints included a charge of evading police (aggravated circumstances) contrary to s 11A(2A) of the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (the Act). His Honour noted that s 11A(3C) prohibits a sentence for an offence contrary to s 11A(2A) from being included as part of a general sentence or mixed sentence imposed under s 11 of the Sentencing Act 1997, and requires that a separate sentence be imposed in respect of the offence. On five of those complaints, in accordance with that provision, His Honour imposed a separate and cumulative sentence of imprisonment for the evade police offence, and recorded convictions without imposing further penalty for each other offence on the complaint. The magistrate imposed three other separate and cumulative sentences in respect of other complaints. In total, his Honour imposed eight separate cumulative sentences of imprisonment, with an aggregate term of four years.
The notice of review contains two grounds, each of which identify technical errors on the part of the learned magistrate. The first ground relates to a non-parole period imposed by his Honour. Notwithstanding having imposed eight separate sentences as already described, his Honour then imposed a single non-parole period of three years in respect of the aggregate period of imprisonment. No complaint is made about the length of the sentences, either individually or in aggregate, or the length of the non-parole period. However, for reasons which have been explained in a number of cases, a sentencing court is not empowered to impose…

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] TASSC 57
Case: [2020] TASSC 57
Decision Date: 27 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parker v Tasmania, the respondent, Mr Parker, appealed against his sentence. Mr Parker had been convicted of various charges, including murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a non-parole period of 24 years. Additionally, he received sentences for other charges, each with their own non-parole periods. The question before the court was whether a separate parole order was required for each sentence of imprisonment.

The court considered the statutory framework governing sentencing in Tasmania. It examined whether the imposition of separate non-parole periods for each sentence required a corresponding separate parole order for each. The court had to determine if the statutory language mandated that each non-parole period must be accompanied by a distinct parole order or if a single parole order could encompass multiple sentences. The High Court concluded that the statutory language did not necessitate separate parole orders for each non-parole period. Instead, a single parole order could adequately reflect the cumulative effect of all non-parole periods imposed.

The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the purpose of the parole order mechanism. It found that the primary objective was to ensure that the parole order accurately reflected the aggregate non-parole period for all sentences. Given this, the imposition of a single parole order that incorporated all non-parole periods was sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements. The court's decision was based on a textual analysis of the relevant provisions, which indicated that separate parole orders were not mandated by the legislation.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the original sentencing order, including the imposition of a single parole order that reflected the cumulative non-parole periods for all sentences. The court's decision clarified the statutory framework and provided guidance for future sentencing in similar circumstances.

Orders