Parker v Tasmania - [2007] TASSC 39

[2007] TASSC 39

CITATION: Parker v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 39

PARTIES:  PARKER, Brenton Kenneth
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 67/2006
DELIVERED ON:  19 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and enquiry after conviction – Appeal against sentence – Appeal by convicted persons – Applications to reduce sentence – When refused – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Assault and unlawful act intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

Wise v R [1965] Tas SR 196; Inkson v R (1996) 6 Tas R 1, followed.
Papazoglou v R 9/1963; R v Allen 112/1999; Hyde v R [2001] TASSC 50, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1015]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  R Mainwaring
           Respondent:  K Brown
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 39
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 39/2007
File No CCA 67/2006

BRENTON KENNETH PARKER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CRAWFORD J

SLICER J
BLOW J
19 June 2007

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 39/2007
File No CCA 67/2006

BRENTON KENNETH PARKER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD J
  19 June 2007

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of assault against the Criminal Code, s184, and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm against s170. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years from 19 July 2006 with a non-parole period of three years. He appealed on a single ground of manifest excessiveness.

The events occurred at Queenstown on 29 December 2004. He and his co-accused, Lance William Jenkins, had heard rumours that the complainant, a man aged 62 years, had sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl. They lived in the same community and the appellant and the girl's mother were on friendly terms. At the local post office he asked the girl's mother about the matter. She said she knew nothing about it. At the time, the complainant was living with the mother and the girl. Prosecuting counsel said that later in the day, the appellant and Jenkins went to the mother's home to look for the appellant. They were told that he was at the house next door. However, the appellant's counsel said, with much vagueness, that on that occasion, "there was some confusion as to the mother's knowledge" and "there was a suggestion that she didn't know what to do about the situation, which Mr Parker took to mean that something perhaps had occurred and he wanted to question the child directly". Counsel said that the appellant approached the child in a room in the house and asked if the appellant "touched you in a bad way" and the child's response confirmed his suspicions that the appellant had done so in a sexual way. However,…

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 [2007] TASSC 39
Case: [2007] TASSC 39
Decision Date: 19 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parker v Tasmania, the appellant, Parker, appealed against his conviction and sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and for committing an unlawful act intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, and the decision was handed down by Justice Atkinson. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's appeal against sentence should be allowed, and if not, whether there were any grounds to reduce his sentence.

The court examined the appellant's arguments, which centred on the alleged disproportionate nature of the sentence imposed. The appellant submitted that the sentence was excessive and that there were mitigating factors that warranted a reduced sentence. The court considered the principles governing sentencing appeals, including the need to balance the severity of the offence with the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also took into account the appellant's criminal history and the impact of his actions on the victims.

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and no order was made to reduce the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders