JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 November 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 November 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 190

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Theft – Burglary – Pleas of guilty – Whether value of plea inappropriately confined to willingness to facilitate the course of justice – Sentencing judge gives limited weight to remorse because of prior convictions – Whether appropriate cumulation orders – Parity – Whether manifestly excessive – Sentencing error disclosed, offenders re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Scott Tasker	Mr B.J. Bourke, Q.C. Ms M. Fox	Matthew Shaw & Associates
For Ian Tasker	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. Mr G. Martin	Quinn & Quinn

WINNEKE, P.:

For the reasons given by Eames, J.A. I agree that the appeal by Ian Tasker, and the application of Scott Tasker, be allowed. I also agree in the dispositions which Eames, J.A. proposes.

CHARLES, J.A.:

I agree with Eames, J.A. that Scott Tasker’s application for leave to appeal against sentence be granted and that the appeals of both Ian and Scott Tasker be allowed and the appellants re-sentenced in the manner proposed, and for the reasons given, by his Honour.

EAMES, J.A.:

Scott Tasker brings an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by a judge of the County Court on 11 December 2002 and his brother Ian Tasker brings an appeal against sentences imposed the same day on a joint presentment with nine counts, six of which were common to both brothers. Ian Tasker was granted leave to appeal against sentence by a judge of this court but the application for leave by Scott Tasker was adjourned to be considered by the court that dealt with his brother’s appeal. At the time of sentence Scott Tasker was aged 31 years and Ian Tasker was aged 32 years.

Counts 1 and 2 were counts of theft. At some time before March 2002, Scott Tasker was approached by one Mario Theodoulou who invited Tasker to steal a motorboat for him. Theodoulou said he would pay up to $5,000 and gave details of the particular kind of boat that he wanted and advised Tasker of the locations of two such boats. Scott Tasker recruited his brother, Ian Tasker, and a friend, Anne Currie, to assist him in this exercise. The brothers inspected the scene where the two boats were located and concluded that those two boats would be too difficult to steal, but Scott Tasker had located a third boat which was on a trailer and parked on the

roadway outside a house. They resolved to steal that boat and in order to do so they first stole a 1981 model Volvo sedan which had a towbar (Count 1). On the night of 21…

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 Tasker

Details

AGLC: R v Tasker [2003] VSCA 190
Case: [2003] VSCA 190
Decision Date: 28 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tasker, the respondent pleaded guilty to charges of theft and burglary. The sentencing court had handed down a sentence which the respondent argued was manifestly excessive. The High Court was asked to determine whether the sentencing court had erred in the way it applied the principles of sentencing. The central legal issues were whether the sentencing judge had confined the value of the plea inappropriately to the respondent's willingness to facilitate the course of justice, whether it was appropriate to give limited weight to the respondent's remorse due to prior convictions, and whether the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in the way it applied the principles of sentencing. The Court held that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the respondent's guilty plea and remorse. The Court found that the judge had confined the value of the plea inappropriately to the respondent's willingness to facilitate the course of justice. The Court also found that the judge had given limited weight to the respondent's remorse because of prior convictions, which was not appropriate. The Court found that these errors resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Court concluded that the sentencing error disclosed warranted the respondents being re-sentenced.

The High Court quashed the sentences imposed by the sentencing court and ordered that the respondents be re-sentenced. The Court held that the respondents were entitled to a re-sentencing hearing before a different sentencing judge, who would take into account all relevant factors, including the guilty pleas and the respondents' remorse. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and that the principles of sentencing are applied correctly.

Orders