Pickett v Tasmania - [2014] TASCCA 1

[2014] TASCCA 1

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

CITATION: Pickett v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 1

PARTIES:  PICKETT, Brett Corey
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

FILE NO/S:273/2012

DELIVERED ON:  14 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6 March 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Porter and Estcourt JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Parity between co-offenders – Plea of guilty to one count of committing an aggravated armed robbery – Whether sentence of seven years with parole eligibility after five years was unjustifiably disparate or manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s240(4).

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3522]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T Jago SC and J Oxley
             Respondent:  J Hartnett and Y Prenc
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2014] TASCCA 1
Number of paragraphs: 36

Serial No 1/2014
File No 273/2012

BRETT COREY PICKETT v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
PORTER J
ESTCOURT J
14 March 2014

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Appellant's sentence varied by reducing the period of ineligibility for parole from 5 years to 3½ years.

Serial No 1/2014
File No 273/2012

BRETT COREY PICKETT v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
14 March 2014

I have read the judgment of Estcourt J in draft form. I agree with his reasons, and with the orders he proposes. There are some comments that I would like to add.

Ground 1 – Disparity

As Estcourt J has observed, it was appropriate for the appellant to receive a heavier sentence than his co-offender because he is older, and because he had a worse record. At the time of the robbery, the appellant was 34 years old, but his co-offender was only 21 years old.
The appellant has spent much of his adult life in prison, beginning with several short sentences in 1996, and several more in 1997. He was sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment in March 2000 for crimes of dishonesty. He was sentenced to a cumulative term of eight months' imprisonment in November 2000 for a robbery – not an armed robbery. There were more short prison sentences in 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2005 a magistrate sentenced him to 294 days' imprisonment for an assortment of offences, and to a cumulative term of one month's imprisonment for motor vehicle stealing and unlicensed driving. Those two sentences appear to have been concurrent with a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, backdated to 6 September 2004, which was subsequently imposed by a judge in relation to some crimes of dishonesty. Then the appellant was sentenced to a cumulative term of 21 months' imprisonment for crimes committed during a prison siege. He was released on parole in June 2009, and was not taken into custody again until 12 January 2011. On 9 January 2012, a magistrate gave him a sentence backdated to 12 January 2011,…

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 Pickett v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Pickett v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 1
Case: [2014] TASCCA 1
Decision Date: 14 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pickett, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following his plea of guilty to one count of aggravated armed robbery. The appeal concerned whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years was manifestly excessive or unjustifiably disparate when compared to the sentences imposed on co-offenders.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a non-parole period of five years, thereby creating an unjustifiable disparity with the sentences of co-offenders and rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the parity principle in relation to the sentences of co-offenders. The Court reasoned that the appellant's role in the commission of the offence was less significant than that of his co-offenders, and that the disparity in the non-parole periods was not justified by any discernible difference in culpability or circumstances. Consequently, the Court varied the appellant's sentence by reducing the period of ineligibility for parole from five years to three and a half years.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Appellant's sentence varied by reducing the period of ineligibility for parole from 5 years to 3½ years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.