Rainbird v Tasmania - [2016] TASCCA 11

[2016] TASCCA 11

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

CITATION: Rainbird v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 11

PARTIES:  RAINBIRD, Jie Lawrence
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 851/2016
DELIVERED ON:  23 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 August 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Aggravated burglary, stealing and receiving – Sentence of 2 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 months.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  Not represented
           Respondent:  A Shand
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Not represented
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 11
Number of paragraphs: 16

Serial No 11/2016
File No CCA 851/2016

JIE LAWRENCE RAINBIRD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
ESTCOURT J
BRETT J
23 August 2016

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 11/2016
File No CCA 851/2016

JIE LAWRENCE RAINBIRD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
23 August 2016

For the reasons stated by Estcourt J, I would dismiss the appeal.
File No CCA 851/2016

JIE LAWRENCE RAINBIRD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
23 August 2016

The appeal

The appellant has appealed against a sentence imposed on him by Tennent J on 16 March 2016.
The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary contrary to the Criminal Code, s 245(a)(iii), one count of stealing contrary to s 234, and one count of receiving stolen property contrary to s 258. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with effect from 28 January 2016 and the learned sentencing judge ordered that he was not to be eligible for parole until he had served 14 months of that term.
The notice of appeal contains one ground only, namely that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case.

The facts

The following statement of the facts of the case is taken from the comments on passing sentence of the learned sentencing judge:
"Between 12 and 13 August 2014, you and another male broke into the property at Sandy Bay and stole property valued in excess of $58,000. The occupants of the home were away at the time. Items stolen included a Toshiba desk top computer with key board and mouse, a WII computer game console and attachments, 2 safes, a quantity of personal identity documents, a number of collector's coins and Sydney Olympic pins, a large quantity of jewellery and watches, an Ipad Mini, a Bose mini sound system and ipod, an Olympus digital camera, a King size electric blanket, a gold chain with 2000 Sydney Olympic artist medallion, a pair of Kombl ski gloves and the keys to three vehicles.
On 14 August 2014, the homeowner found one of the stolen ski gloves. Your DNA was found when…

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 Rainbird v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Rainbird v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 11
Case: [2016] TASCCA 11
Decision Date: 23 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rainbird, appealed against a sentence of two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The sentence was for offences of aggravated burglary, stealing, and receiving.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to such matters. The judges applied established principles of sentencing, weighing the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. After careful consideration of all relevant factors, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

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.