Read v Tasmania

Case [2016] TASCCA 8

[2016] TASCCA 8

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

CITATION:                 Read v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 8

PARTIES:  READ, Jack Owen
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 602/2016
DELIVERED ON:  15 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1 June 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Wounding.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Acts intended to cause or causing danger to life or bodily harm or serious injury – Sentence – Wounding with subjective recklessness.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2235]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G Stevens
             Respondent:  Y Prenc
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  No Solicitor
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2016] TASCCA 8
Number of paragraphs:  26

Serial No 8/2016

File No CCA 602/2016

JACK OWEN READ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
15 June 2016

Orders of the Court (1 June 2016)

  1. Appeal allowed.

  1. Sentence of 9 months' imprisonment, with 7 months thereof suspended, imposed on 25 February 2016, quashed.

  1. Substituted sentence of 37 weeks' imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 2 years from his release from custody on 8 March 2016.

Serial No 8/2016

File No CCA 602/2016

JACK OWEN READ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
15 June 2016

  1. On 1 June 2016 this Court made orders allowing this appeal, quashing a partly suspended sentence of imprisonment, and substituting a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment.  Details of the quashed and substituted sentences appear in the judgment of Pearce J.  My reasons for joining in the orders made on 1 June are identical with those stated by Pearce J.

    File No CCA 602/2016

JACK OWEN READ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
15 June 2016

  1. I agree with Pearce J.  The reasons stated by his Honour accurately reflect my reasons for joining in the orders made.

    File No CCA 602/2016

JACK OWEN READ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
15 June 2016

  1. This is a sentencing appeal. On 3 February 2016 the appellant, Jack Read, pleaded guilty to wounding. He was sentenced by Tennent J to imprisonment for 9 months, 7 months of which were suspended for 2 years. Her Honour also ordered that the appellant, on his release, perform 100 hours of community service.

  2. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. Following the hearing of the appeal on 1 June 2016, I joined in the making of orders allowing the appeal, quashing part of the sentence, and substituting a new sentence. The orders reflect my view that the learned sentencing judge erred…

Continue reading Read v Tasmania

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Read v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 8
Case
[2016] TASCCA 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Read, for the offence of wounding. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of nine months' imprisonment, with seven months suspended, was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying interference on appeal. The Court was required to consider the principles governing appeals against sentence and the appropriate sentencing considerations for the offence of wounding, particularly where subjective recklessness was a factor.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence to be excessive. In its reasoning, the Court applied established principles of sentencing, considering the appellant's subjective circumstances and the nature of the offence. The Court determined that a lesser sentence was warranted and, accordingly, quashed the original sentence. A substituted sentence of 37 weeks' imprisonment was imposed, which was wholly suspended on the condition that the appellant commit no further offence punishable by imprisonment within two years of his release.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Sentence of 9 months' imprisonment, with 7 months thereof suspended, imposed on 25 February 2016, quashed.

3. Substituted sentence of 37 weeks' imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that the appellant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 2 years from his release from custody on 8 March 2016.

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.