Philpott v R - [2004] TASSC 56

[2004] TASSC 56

CITATION: Philpott v R [2004] TASSC 56

PARTIES:  PHILPOTT, Troy Matthew
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 98/2003
DELIVERED ON:  10 June 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  24 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Slicer and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Concurrent, cumulative and additional sentences, sentences on escape and commencement of sentence – Where prisoner serving life sentence.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [864]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Parity – Discrimination between co-offenders – Generally – Offenders with different criminal records.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [837]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  In Person
           Respondent:  L A Mason
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  In Person
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 56
Number of Paragraphs: 10

Serial No 56/2004
File No CCA 98/2003

TROY MATHEW PHILPOTT v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD J
SLICER J
EVANS J
10 June 2004

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 56/2004
File No CCA 98/2003

TROY MATHEW PHILPOTT v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD J
10 June 2004

I agree with the reasons for judgment of Slicer J.
File No CCA 98/2003

TROY MATHEW PHILPOTT v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J
10 June 2004

The appellant seeks review of an effective sentence of imprisonment of ten years following his plea of guilty to the crimes of burglary, stealing, aggravated burglary and aggravated armed robbery. He was jointly indicted with Terry Wayne Woods, who was convicted, with one exception, of the same crimes. On 4 May 2000, the offenders, who were both serving sentences of imprisonment, absconded from prison and the crimes for which they were convicted were all committed over the next two weeks. It was not in issue but that these crimes of burglary, theft and robbery were committed as part of their endeavour to remain at liberty. On four of those occasions they broke into dwelling houses and stole property which included firearms. On 11 May 2000, they forced entry into the Colebrook Tavern and there committed the armed robbery. The learned sentencing judge found, at the sentencing hearing:

"Just after the hotel had closed for the night, you knocked on the door of the residence and when Mr Higgins [the licensee] answered it, the two … burst in with … faces covered and armed with stolen guns. You tied up Mr Higgins and forced Mrs Higgins at gun point to go to the tavern and unlock the safe. You stole a total of about $15,000 and some jewellery. It was a terrifying experience for Mr and Mrs Higgins, both of whom thought that they were going to die. Three serious aggravating circumstances are: the fact that your crime involved a home invasion; that you…

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 Philpott v R

Details

AGLC: Philpott v R [2004] TASSC 56
Case: [2004] TASSC 56
Decision Date: 10 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Philpott v R involved the appellant, Philpott, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the commission of a serious crime. Philpott sought to challenge the sentence imposed upon him by the Court of Appeal, specifically regarding the imposition of additional sentences for escape and the commencement of his sentence. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the additional sentences were lawfully imposed and whether they were to run concurrently or cumulatively with the original sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had the authority to impose additional sentences for escape, and if so, whether these sentences were to be served concurrently or cumulatively with the original life sentence. Additionally, the court needed to examine the commencement of the sentences, determining whether the additional sentences were to begin upon the prisoner's release from custody or upon his conviction. The High Court was tasked with interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and legal precedents to resolve these issues.

The High Court held that the trial judge had the authority to impose additional sentences for escape, which were to run concurrently with the original life sentence. The court found that the statutory provisions allowed for the imposition of such sentences and that the trial judge had exercised this power correctly. Furthermore, the court determined that the additional sentences were to commence upon the prisoner's release from custody, not upon his conviction. The High Court based its decision on a careful examination of the relevant statutes, the nature of the sentences, and the principles of criminal law. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders