Richardson v White - [2005] TASSC 57

[2005] TASSC 57

CITATION: Richardson v White [2005] TASSC 57

PARTIES:  RICHARDSON, Marlena Mariee
  v
  WHITE, Graham Ross

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 17/2005
DELIVERED ON:  23 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeals from and control over magistrates – Tasmania – Motion to review – The hearing – Generally – Review of sentence – Principles applicable.

Chadd v Stearns B7/1990; Lahey v Edwards 47/1967; Williscroft v Hibble [2002] TASSC 88; House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; Cranssen v R (1936) 55 CLR 509, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [272]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  I Crompton
             Respondent:  F C Neasey
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Mackie Crompton
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 57/2005
File No LCA 17/2005

MARLENA MARIEE RICHARDSON v GRAHAM ROSS WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

23 June 2005

The applicant seeks a review of a sentencing order made by a magistrate at Campbelltown on 21 February 2005.

The applicant was charged with three offences, one of common assault, one of trespass and one of injure property. All were offences under the Police Offences Act 1935. She pleaded not guilty and the matter went to hearing. She was unrepresented both at the hearing and for the purpose of sentence. She was found guilty of all three charges. She was sentenced, in respect of the assault, to three months' imprisonment, two of which were suspended; in respect of the trespass to a fine of $350; and in respect of the injure property to a fine of $250. Counsel for the applicant advised that the appeal against sentence was confined to that part of it relating to the assault.

At the hearing, the only seriously live issue was the assault. The applicant had effectively admitted in her statement to police on the day of the offences that she had committed the offences of trespass and injure property. She had also admitted that she knocked the complainant off her stool but maintained it was an accident. The learned magistrate found it was deliberate.

The particulars of the assault were that the applicant pushed the complainant off her seat with her left arm, knocking her to the ground. The events occurred at the Campbelltown hotel. The applicant had, it appeared, gone there looking to find her partner, Mr Woods. She found him there at the bar with the complainant and another female. She was upset and she said went towards her partner and knocked him off his stool. She asserted that in the process she knocked the complainant off hers accidentally.

At the hearing the learned magistrate found that the applicant had forcefully removed the complainant from her stool, that the complainant went to the ground quite hard, and that the stool ended up on top of her. He also found that the applicant was abusive and took steps towards the complainant…

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 White

Details

AGLC: Richardson v White [2005] TASSC 57
Case: [2005] TASSC 57
Decision Date: 23 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Richardson versus White, the defendant, Richardson, appealed against a sentence imposed by a magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute involves the sentence imposed by the magistrate and whether it was excessive or inappropriate. Richardson sought a review of the sentence on the grounds that it was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles that should govern the review of a sentence imposed by a magistrate. The court had to consider whether the sentence was within the range of sentences that a magistrate could impose for the offence, and whether there were any factors that warranted a departure from the usual range of sentences. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether the magistrate had taken into account all relevant factors when imposing the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence. However, the court found that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court found that the magistrate had not taken into account all relevant factors when imposing the sentence, including the defendant's background and circumstances. The court found that the sentence was not proportionate to the offence and was therefore inappropriate. The court ordered a review of the sentence and remitted the matter to the magistrate for reconsideration.

Orders