R v Rouse - [1990] TASSC 66

Serial No 64/1990
List "A"

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

CITATION: R v Rouse [1990] TASSC 66; A64/1990

PARTIES:  R
  v
  ROUSE, Edmund Alexander

FILE NO/S:  CCA 25/1990
DELIVERED ON:  19 October 1990
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox, Underwood and Wright JJ

Judgment Number: A64/1990
Number of paragraphs: 30

Serial No 64/1990
List "A"
File No CCA 25/1990

THE QUEEN v EDMUND ALEXANDER ROUSE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX J
UNDERWOOD J
WRIGHT J
19 October 1990

Order of the Court

Application for Leave to Appeal refused.

Serial No 64/1990
List "A"
File No CCA 25/1990

THE QUEEN v EDMUND ALEXANDER ROUSE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX J
19 October 1990

The Attorney–General seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent upon an indictment charging one count of offering a bribe to a Member of Parliament, contrary to s72 of the Criminal Code, and one count of improper use of position as an officer of a company, contrary to s229(4) of the Companies (Tasmania) Code. The learned judge at first instance did not impose a global sentence upon the whole of the indictment but, as he was entitled to do, imposed separate sentences on each count. On the first he imposed a sentence of three years' immediate imprisonment and on the second he fined the respondent the sum of $4,000.00.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

"1That his Honour erred in that he failed to give any, or sufficient, weight to the question of personal deterrence.
2That his Honour erred in that having characterised the conduct of the Respondent relevant to the conviction for Offering a Bribe to a Member of Parliament as a 'grossly criminal attempt to interfere in a most basic way with legitimate executive Government, and with the result of a democratic election' he failed to impose a sentence which:
(a)reflected the seriousness of the Respondent's conduct; and
(b)would act as a general deterrent.

3That the sentence of three years' imprisonment with a fine of $4,000.00 imposed by his Honour was manifestly inadequate having regard to all the circumstances of the case."

The facts giving rise to this highly publicised matter can be stated shortly. On 12 May 1989 a general election was held for the State House of Assembly, the Liberal Party until then having held Government with a majority on the floor of the House. When the polls were declared on 29 May 1989 that majority had been lost and Liberal members numbered 17, one short of a majority in the 35 member House. The remaining seats were held by 13 Labour members and five Independents. In these circumstances the possibility existed that the Liberal Government could maintain office with support from all its own members and one or more of the remaining members or that the Labour Party would displace it if it could rely on the support of all its members and that of all 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 Rouse

Details

AGLC: R v Rouse [1990] TASSC 66
Case: [1990] TASSC 66
Decision Date: 19 October 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rouse before the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal involves Edmund Alexander Rouse, who was convicted of offering a bribe to a Member of Parliament and improper use of his position as an officer of a company. The Attorney-General sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which consisted of a three-year imprisonment term for the bribery offence and a $4,000 fine for the improper use of corporate funds. The appeal grounds argued that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to personal deterrence, did not impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the conduct, and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the appeal grounds, noting the nature and gravity of the offences committed by Rouse, which involved an attempt to influence the outcome of a democratic election through bribery and misuse of corporate funds. The court acknowledged that such crimes are rare and that there were no established sentencing parameters for these specific offences in Tasmania. The judges noted that the trial judge had given careful consideration to the sentencing principles and had imposed a sentence within the broad discretion afforded to him. The court held that while the sentence may not have been the norm, it was not manifestly inadequate or outside the permissible range, and thus the appeal should be dismissed.

The court concluded that the sentence of three years' imprisonment for the bribery offence, along with the disqualification from holding office as a company director or manager for five years after his release, was sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation. The fine of $4,000 for the improper use of corporate funds, when considered alongside the disqualification, also indicated the court's disapproval of the conduct. The judges agreed that while the sentence might be at the lower end of the scale, it was not out of proportion to the gravity of the crime, and thus the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders