PTR v Tasmania - [2012] TASCCA 8

[2012] TASCCA 8

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

CITATION: PTR v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 8

PARTIES:  PTR
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S:  948/2011
DELIVERED ON:  23 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  15 August 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Murphy v R [2000] TASSC 169, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Procedure – Powers of court on appeal – To consider fresh evidence – Evidence available at time of sentence and unlikely to have had any impact on sentence.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3542]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Procedure – Miscellaneous matters – Tasmania – Order under Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 – Length of order – Whether term of order disproportionate to offending and assessment of risk of re-offending.

Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 (Tas), ss6, 24.
Traynor v McCullough [2011] TASSC 41, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3572]

REPRESENTATION:

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

Judgment Number: [2012] TASCCA 8
Number of paragraphs: 32

Serial No 8/2012
File No 948/2011

PTR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
BLOW J
TENNENT J
23 August 2012

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 8/2012
File No 948/2011

PTR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
23 August 2012

I agree, for the reasons given by Tennent J, that the appeal should be dismissed.
File No 948/2011

PTR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
23 August 2012

I agree that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons stated by Tennent J. The order that the appellant comply with the reporting obligations under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 for a period of 10 years from the date of sentencing was not unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505. The Facebook material that the appellant sought to rely on was not sufficiently significant to warrant this Court receiving it as evidence. The global sentence of 5½ years' imprisonment and the non-parole period of three years were not manifestly excessive. A somewhat longer head sentence, and a somewhat longer non-parole period, would have been unimpeachable in my view.

File No 948/2011

PTR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
23 August 2012

On 11 October 2011, the appellant, having been found guilty by a jury of one count of rape, five counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of aggravated assault, one count of assault and one count of indecent assault, was sentenced to serve a term of five and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole…

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 PTR v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: PTR v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 8
Case: [2012] TASCCA 8
Decision Date: 23 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on PTR, who pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated assault. The sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment and made an order under the *Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005* (Tas) requiring PTR to report to police for a period of 15 years. PTR appealed against both the custodial sentence and the length of the reporting order. The appeal was heard by Crawford CJ, Blow and Tennent JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the 15-year reporting order was disproportionate to the offending and the assessed risk of re-offending, thereby constituting an error of law. The Court also considered whether to admit fresh evidence on appeal, which related to PTR's circumstances at the time of sentencing and was unlikely to have affected the original sentencing decision.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in imposing the custodial sentence, which was considered appropriate given the gravity of the offence. However, the Court determined that the 15-year reporting order was disproportionate. Applying the principles of proportionality and considering the specific circumstances of the offender and the assessed risk, the Court concluded that the length of the order was excessive. The Court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, finding it was available at the time of sentence and unlikely to have altered the outcome.

Consequently, the Full Court varied the sentence by reducing the period of the reporting order to five years. The custodial sentence was otherwise affirmed.

Orders