Richman v Tasmania

[2011] TASCCA 18

[2011] TASCCA 18

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

CITATION:           Richman v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 18

PARTIES:  RICHMAN, Peter Robin
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S:  347/2011
DELIVERED ON:  21 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  14 September 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans, Blow and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Other matters – Maintaining sexual relationship with young person under 17 – Sentence of two years' imprisonment – Non-parole period of one year and three months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3537]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K L Baumeler
             Respondent:  L A Mason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2011] TASCCA 18
Number of paragraphs:  52

Serial No 18/2011

File No 347/2011

PETER ROBIN RICHMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  EVANS J

BLOW J
PORTER J
21 December 2011

Orders of the Court

1. Appeal allowed.

1. The order that the appellant be eligible to apply for parole when he has served 15 months of his sentence is quashed and in its place it is ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he has served one-half of the period of his sentence.

Serial No 18/2011
File No 347/2011

PETER ROBIN RICHMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

EVANS J
21 December 2011

1. The appellant appeals against a sentence of two years' imprisonment, subject to a non-parole period of 15 months, imposed on him by Tennent J upon his conviction, on his plea of guilty, to a charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17 years. 

1. The grounds of appeal involve contentions that the head sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive, and that the learned sentencing judge erred in:

·     disregarding submissions that the sexual relationship was provoked by the complainant;

·     declining to regard the case as atypical;

·     determining that the need for general deterrence demanded the imposition of an actual custodial sentence; and

·     imposing a non-parole period greater than one half of the head sentence.

1. The sexual relationship that is the subject of the conviction commenced some time after 3 May 1981 and concluded not long after January 1982.  During this period the female complainant was 15 years of age and the appellant 46 years of age.

1. For some years prior to 1981, the complainant had been a member of the Rosny Children's Choir.  The appellant was the choir's organist.  They became acquainted and a friendship developed between them.  The appellant, on occasions, gave the complainant a lift home after choir rehearsals.  The complainant's parents had separated when she was three years of age.  She resided with her mother.  The complainant's mother came to regard the appellant as a trusted family friend.  He often had a cup of tea with her after giving the complainant a lift home.  This continued during the period of…