Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Plea of guilty to three counts of assault and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm – Act of dousing partner in petrol and setting it alight resulting in burns to 25% of her body – Sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Tas), ss 170(1), 184.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  W Ayliffe SC
             Respondent:  L Mason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Blissenden Lawyers
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 22
Number of paragraphs: 45

Serial No 22/2016
File No 1051/2016

MICHAEL JOHN PRICE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
WOOD J
ESTCOURT J
6 December 2016

Order of the Court (8 November 2016)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 22/2016
File No 1051/2016

MICHAEL JOHN PRICE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
6 December 2016

Michael Price, the appellant, was sentenced by Porter J on 7 April 2016 in respect of three counts of assault (contrary to the Criminal Code, s 184) and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm (contrary to s 170). The offences were committed between August 2014 and June 2015. The victim of all the offending was the appellant's then partner. All the offending occurred in the course of their domestic relationship. The appellant was sentenced by Porter J in respect of all the offending on a global basis to 10 years' imprisonment. There was an order the appellant be eligible for parole after he had served six years.
The appellant's appeal against the sentence imposed by Porter J was heard and dismissed by the Court on 8 November 2016. These are my reasons for joining in the dismissal of that appeal.
I have had the benefit of reading in draft form the reasons of Estcourt J. In substance, I agree with those reasons. I specifically adopt the summary of the grounds of appeal and the law relating to the appeal, and those paragraphs containing an outline of the circumstances of the offending, the victim impact and the sentencing remarks of Porter J as they appear at [2]–[9] of his Honour's reasons.
I would like to add some further comments. This was a serious case involving instances of escalating domestic violence over several months. The acts culminated in the most serious act which involved the appellant, when under the influence of alcohol, pouring petrol over the complainant and lighting…

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 Price v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22
Case: [2016] TASCCA 22
Decision Date: 6 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Price v Tasmania*, the appellant, Price, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Price had pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. The unlawful act involved dousing his partner in petrol and setting her alight, which resulted in her sustaining burns to 25% of her body. The appeal was heard by Tennent, Wood and Estcourt JJ of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years, was manifestly excessive. The appellant sought to argue that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was too severe and ought to be reduced on appeal.

The Full Court considered the gravity of the offending conduct, noting the extreme violence involved in dousing the victim with petrol and setting her alight, and the severe injuries sustained by the victim. The court applied the principles governing appeals against sentence, which require interference only where the sentence is demonstrably outside the range of a reasonable sentence or is otherwise unjust. After reviewing the facts and the sentencing judge's reasons, the Full Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not outside the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion and was therefore not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22

Most Recent Citation

Kirkwood v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 7

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Whiteroad
[2025] TASCCA 3

…CA 14 Hardwick v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 2, 32 Tas R 62 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Palmer v State of Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 6 Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22; 31 Tas R 218 R v Ackland [2019] NZHA 312, referred to The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Crisp
[2021] TASCCA 6

…al Appeal); Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth (above) at [11]-[17]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Rogers [2011] TASCCA 17; Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22. However this is by no means a hard and fast rule: Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12 at [17]. 5 No 6/2021…
Parker v Tasmania
[2020] TASCCA 9 Para 6

…res a sentence that reflects the insidious nature of such offending, and the importance of protecting those vulnerable to such harm: Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22; Director of Public Prosecutions v Karklins [2018] TASCCA 6; Gregson v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 14; Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnson [2020] TA…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Foster
[2019] TASCCA 15 Para 6

…The assaults were committed in the context of domestic violence, which is an aggravating factor: see Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22 at [39], per Estcourt J. They were cowardly and vicious. The notion of causing the complainant to wet herself, even minimally, by confining her to the bed is abhorrent. While noting…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Greely
[2019] TASCCA 10 Para 2

…eavier sentences have been imposed in respect of crimes against s 170 of the Code cases such as Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12, and Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22 (in which sentences were imposed, respectively, of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years, and ten years' impris…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Karklins
[2018] TASCCA 6 Para 8

…The crimes were committed in the context of a domestic relationship. This is also an aggravating factor: Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22 at [39] per Estcourt J.…
Butt v Tasmania
[2018] TASCCA 3 Para 4

…These comments were re-affirmed recently in Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12, and in Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22, in which cases sentences of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years, and ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years were held not to be manife…
Maddox v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 25 Para 24

…o seven years' imprisonment: Papazoglou v The Queen 9/1963; R v Allen (above) per Wright J at [13]; Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12; Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22; Cordwell v Tasmania (above) at [13].…
Richardson v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 16 Para 1

…Court has applied the principles governing the question of sentencing range in a number of cases ( Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12, Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22 and Kirkwood v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 7). It has also addressed the significance of crimes involving the Code, s 170 ( R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 and…
Director of Public Prosecutions v WLNH
[2017] TASCCA 15 Para 7

…sentiments are reflected in the Family Violence Act 2004 and have been expressed by the courts on many occasions. See, for example, Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22, per Estcourt J at [39].…
Cordwell v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 14 Para 1

…These comments were re-affirmed recently in Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12, and in Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22, in which cases sentences of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years, and ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years were held not to be manife…
Kirkwood v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 7 Para 9

…secutions v Rogers [2011] TASCCA 17; Director of Public Prosecutions v Blackaby [2013] TASCCA 4; Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12 and Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22. Those cases apply the statements in Lovegrove v The Queen [1961] Tas SR 106 at 107, and R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at [3], to the effect…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Jay v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 12 Para 2

…Leaving to one side for a moment the three counts of assault, it is clear from the recent decision of this Court in Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12 that a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for a serious example of the crime of committing an act intended to cause bodily harm is not to be regarded as excessive.…
Kilic v The Queen
[2015] VSCA 331 Para 1

…s] actions have consigned Ms Jacobs to a lifetime of pain and suffering, physically and emotionally." It may be noted that in Kilic v The Queen [2015] VSCA 331 at [31], the Victorian Court of Appeal considered similar conduct involving a charge of intentionally causing serious injury and stated: "The intentional s…
Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce
[2015] TASCCA 1 Para 3

…In Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce [2015] TASCCA 1, a case involving an assertion of error of the second type discussed in House , Pearce J, with whom Blow CJ and Porter J agreed, succinctly but comprehensively, if I may say so with respect, summarised the relevant principles at [8] as follows: "…
R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General
[2014] QCA 345 Para 15

…some provisional predetermined outer range for cases that are out of the ordinary. As Fraser JA said in R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 345 at [5]: "It is necessary to mention only Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen , in which the High Court concluded that past sentences do not mark…
Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS
[2013] TASCCA 10 Para 3

…Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 at [15], and the other cases referred to by this Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. Sentencing judges should be 'accorded a wide measure of latitude': Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 per Kirby J at 336. Exc…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris
[2013] TASCCA 5 Para 2

…As to that latter consideration, whilst I was in dissent in Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5, I venture to repeat what I said in my reasons in that case at [41] about discounts for early pleas of guilty. My comments remain applicable whether the decision to plead guilty was a bowing to the…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Blackaby
[2013] TASCCA 4 Para 6

…In Jay at [11]-[18] I made the following observations with which Tennent and Pearce JJ agreed: "11 In Director of Public Prosecutions v Blackaby [2013] TASCCA 4, I said at [16]-[22], with Blow CJ and Wood J agreeing: 'There is no doubt that counsel for the appellant was correct in submitting that because specific…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Rogers
[2011] TASCCA 17 Para 10

…These comments were re-affirmed relatively recently in Director of Public Prosecutions v Rogers [2011] TASCCA 17 at [16], where Evans J, with whom Porter and Wood JJ agreed, observed at [16]: "16 The crime that is the subject of count 2 is committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm in breach of the Co…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 3

…(above) at [6]. In considering that question regard is to be given to all the matters that are relevant to determining the sentence: Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 at 539."…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth
[2010] TASCCA 10 Para 10

…harm in breach of the Code, s170. It is a serious crime. An element of it is a specific intent to disable or do grievous bodily harm. In DPP v Blyth [2010] TASCCA 10, Blow J, agreed with by Porter and Wood JJ, reviewed a number of authorities on the sentencing range that was appropriate for a contravention of s170…
Barron v Tasmania
[2010] TASCCA 3 Para 6

…s worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].'"…
Dinsdale v The Queen
[2000] HCA 54 Para 3

…hich limit the circumstances in which intervention of an appellate court is justified. The court sits to correct material error: Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 per Kirby J at [57]-[60]. Where no specific error is alleged, this Court must be persuaded of error of the second type referred t…
R v Allen
[1999] TASSC 112 Para 6

…intent to do grievous bodily harm is generally regarded as worse than one against s172, which does not necessarily involve such an intent: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112 per Cox CJ at par [2]; Barron v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 3 at par[21].'"…
Postiglione v the Queen
[1997] HCA 26 Para 3

…in Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. Sentencing judges should be 'accorded a wide measure of latitude': Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 per Kirby J at 336. Excess or inadequacy is either apparent or it is not: Dinsdale v The Queen (above) at [6]. In considering tha…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 7

…hen sentencing for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s172, the sentencing judge may, without offending the principle in De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383, sentence on the basis that the offender had an intention to cause grievous bodily harm …".…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…ce on the ground of manifest excess or inadequacy. I do so as, although the appellant alleges error of the first type referred to in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505, it will become obvious that the learned sentencing judge did not err in the specific ways alleged, and the gravamen of the appellant's appeal…
Bresnehan v The Queen
[1992] TASSC 55 Para 3

…r is so manifestly wrong that it could only be the result of some undefinable error in the exercise of the judicial discretion: Bresnehan v The Queen [1992] TASSC 55; (1992) 1 Tas R 234 at 242. A court of criminal appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely because the appella…
This Court held in Pavlic v R
[1995] TASSC 96 Para 2

…ffective administration of justice and not purely as an aspect of mitigation (see R v Caley (supra) at [4] and [13]). This Court held in Pavlic v R [1995] TASSC 96; (1995) 5 Tas R 186 that a plea of guilty is a mitigating factor like any other and should not be assessed as a separate secondary process, or as justi…
Tas R 72; R v Marshall 70/1990; Inkson v R
[1996] TASSC 13 Para 9

…evious decisions of this Court (see Lovegrove v R [1961] Tas SR 106; Brown v R (supra); Bennett v R [1990] Tas R 72; R v Marshall 70/1990; Inkson v R [1996] TASSC 13; (1996) 6 Tas R 1). In Papazoglou v R 9/1963, the Court of Criminal Appeal refused to dissent from comments made by the Chief Justice when imposing s…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 1

…ls against sentence on the ground of manifest excess or inadequacy. I do so as, although the appellant alleges error of the first type referred to in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505, it will become obvious that the learned sentencing judge did not err in the specific ways alleged, and the gravamen of the appella…
[1999] HCA 29
[1999] HCA 29 Para 3

…exercised its discretion in a manner different from the manner in which the sentencing judge exercised his or her discretion: see Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 at [15], and the other cases referred to by this Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. Sentencing judg…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.