Legal Research
Cases
R v Allen

R v Allen

Case [1999] TASSC 112 28 October 1999

Type to search within this case.

[1999] TASSC 112

CITATION: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112

PARTIES: R

v
ALLEN, Stuart William

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 37/1999
DELIVERED ON:  28 October 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 August 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Wright J, Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by Attorney-General or other Crown Law Officer - Powers of Appellate Court - Generally - Discretion of court - Whether to intervene - Manifestly inadequate sentence.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [1021]

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by Attorney-General or other Crown Law Officer - Applications to increase sentence - offences against the person - Grievous bodily harm.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [1023]
R v Bennett [1990] Tas R 72; Lovegrove v R [1961] Tas SR 106; Inkson v R (1996) 6 Tas R 1, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M A Stoddart
             Respondent:  T J Ellis
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Clarke & Gee

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 112
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 112/1999
File No CCA 37/1999

THE QUEEN v STUART WILLIAM ALLEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
WRIGHT J
SLICER J (dissenting)
28 October 1999

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Sentence quashed.

Substitute a sentence of three years' imprisonment from 13 December 1998.

Serial No 112/1999
File No CCA 37/1999

THE QUEEN v STUART WILLIAM ALLEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
28 October 1999

The respondent was convicted of the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code, s170. He was also convicted of assaulting a second complainant. The detailed facts are contained in the learned sentencing judge's comments on passing sentence, which my brother Wright J has incorporated in his Reasons for Judgment which I have had the advantage of perusing.

An essential element of a crime against s170 is the intention to cause one of various forms of serious harm, including grievous bodily harm, but the crime can be established by the doing of actual bodily harm short of harm meeting the Code definition of grievous bodily harm. Hence a person could be convicted under s170 if it is proved that with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, he did an act which caused any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health and comfort which was not necessarily permanent but which was more than trifling. On the other hand, the circumstances may show that with such an intent, he inflicted "bodily injury of such a nature as to be likely to endanger life, or to cause or be likely to cause serious injury to health" (Criminal Code, s1).

While the crime of causing grievous bodily harm under s172 requires the…

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 R v Allen

Details

AGLC: R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112
Case: [1999] TASSC 112
Decision Date: 28 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania reviewed the case of R v Allen, wherein the appellant was convicted of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and assault. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the sentence imposed, which was two years and six months, with nine months suspended. The respondent, Stuart William Allen, had attacked the victim, Christopher Lloyd George, with a baseball bat, causing severe injuries that led to chronic physical and emotional disability. The Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the crime.

The Court considered the premeditated nature of the attack, the use of a weapon, the lack of remorse shown by Allen, and the significant impact on the victim and his family. It was noted that Allen's co-offenders received more severe sentences, which led to arguments about the principle of double jeopardy. However, the Court emphasized that while the double jeopardy principle should be considered, it should not prevent the imposition of a just sentence if the original penalty was manifestly inadequate. The Court also highlighted the need to maintain consistency in sentencing while acknowledging the unique circumstances of each case.

In the end, the majority of the Court found the original sentence to be manifestly inadequate and allowed the appeal. The sentence was quashed, and a new sentence of three years' imprisonment was substituted, effective from the date of the original sentence. The dissenting opinion argued that while the sentence was within the appropriate range, the Court should still consider the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence. However, the majority view prevailed, and the appeal was allowed with the specified new sentence.

Orders