Richardson v Tasmania - [2017] TASCCA 16

[2017] TASCCA 16

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

CITATION: Richardson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 16

PARTIES:  RICHARDSON, William Henry
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1257/2017
DELIVERED ON:  8 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  22 August 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Brett J and Slicer AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm – Attack on wife with tomahawk in supermarket in front of children – Sentence of seven years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 4½ years not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 170.
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48, 339 ALR 229; R v Allen [1999] TASSC 112; Director of Public Prosecutions v Blyth [2010] TASCCA 10; Jay v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 12; Price v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 22; Kirkwood v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 7, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  In person
           Respondent:  L Mason, M Allen
Solicitors:
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 16
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 16/2017
File No 1257/2017

WILLIAM HENRY RICHARDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
BRETT J
SLICER AJ
8 September 2017

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 16/2017
File No 1257/2017

WILLIAM HENRY RICHARDSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
8 September 2017

On 6 March 2016 the appellant, William Richardson, unexpectedly encountered his estranged wife and their children at a shopping centre. He purchased a tomahawk and attacked his wife with it in a supermarket aisle in front of their children. At a trial before Estcourt J, he was found guilty of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, contrary to s 170 of the Criminal Code. His Honour sentenced the appellant to seven years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4½ years. He has appealed. He contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
I agree with Slicer AJ that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, for the reasons stated by him.
The appellant was charged not just with a crime contrary to s 170, but also with attempted murder. The jury found him not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser charge. His wife gave evidence. At the conclusion of her evidence-in-chief, the appellant instructed his counsel to tell the prosecutor that he was willing to plead guilty to the s 170 charge if the attempted murder charge was not proceeded with. That offer was made and immediately rejected. The learned sentencing judge declined to take the making of that offer into account for sentencing purposes. In my view he erred in taking that approach. The making of the offer was something that should have been taken into account but, in…

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 Richardson v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 16
Case: [2017] TASCCA 16
Decision Date: 8 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Richardson, appealed against a sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four and a half years, imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The sentence followed his conviction for committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. The applicant's appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Brett J, and Slicer AJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying appellate intervention. The applicant contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect mitigating factors and was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The Full Court considered the circumstances of the offending, which involved an attack on the applicant's wife with a tomahawk in a supermarket, in the presence of their children. The Court applied the principles governing appeals against sentence, which require a demonstration that the sentence is not merely severe, but demonstrably wrong or unjust. The Court weighed the seriousness of the violent act, the potential for grave harm, the impact on the victims, and the need for general and specific deterrence against any mitigating factors presented. The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant aspects of the case and that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for such an offence.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders