Legal Research
Cases
Riley v Tasmania

Riley v Tasmania

Case [2021] TASCCA 8 8 October 2021

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2021] TASCCA 8

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Riley v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 8
PARTIES:	RILEY, Bradley Mark
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	1870/2021
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	5 October 2021
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J, Geason J, Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Head sentence of two years with eligibility for parole after one year – One counts of unlawfully setting fire to property and related summary offences including aggravated burglary and motor vehicle stealing – Not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: N Pearce-Rasmussen
Respondent: H Denton, F Radin

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2021] TASCCA 8
Number of paragraphs:	24

Serial No 8/2021

File No 1870/2021

BRADLEY MARK RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL PEARCE J GEASON J MARSHALL AJ 8 October 2021
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 8/2021

File No 1870/2021

BRADLEY MARK RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
PEARCE J
8 October 2021

1             On 23 July 2021 the appellant was sentenced by Martin AJ to imprisonment for two years from 22 June 2021, with eligibility for parole after one year. The appellant challenges the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. Following the conclusion of submissions I joined in an order dismissing the appeal. These are my reasons.
2             The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully setting fire to property. In addition, he was sentenced on his plea of guilty to five summary charges: one count of aggravated burglary, one count of stealing, two counts of motor vehicle stealing and one count of injuring property.
3             During the late afternoon or early evening of 23 January 2021 the appellant, with two females, walked to a house in suburban Launceston. The house was unattended because the residents were away for the weekend. The offenders entered through a window after cutting the fly screen. Once inside, over the course of about two hours, they ransacked the home, opening drawers and cupboards and leaving property strewn on the floor and beds. The television was smashed. They stole a diving watch, a bracelet, a ring, a jewellery box, a mobile phone and two tablets, worth in total about $1000. They also stole the keys to a Mitsubishi 4WD Triton utility which was parked in the carport. The Triton was parked behind, and blocked in by, a Holden Commodore. The offenders used a hammer taken from inside the residence to smash the driver's window of the Commodore. Then, after putting that car in neutral gear, the appellant used the Triton, for which he had the keys, to push the Commodore down the driveway onto the street, before driving away with…

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 Riley v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Riley v Tasmania [2021] TASCCA 8
Case: [2021] TASCCA 8
Decision Date: 8 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant had pleaded guilty to unlawfully setting fire to property, as well as several related summary offences including aggravated burglary and motor vehicle stealing. The head sentence imposed was two years' imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving one year.

The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was therefore required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was so disproportionate to the gravity of the offences or the circumstances of the offender as to warrant appellate intervention.

The appellate court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, noting the inherent dangers and potential for widespread damage associated with unlawfully setting fire to property, particularly when combined with other serious offences like aggravated burglary and motor vehicle theft. The court also took into account the appellant's guilty plea and any mitigating factors presented. After a thorough review of the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the sentence of two years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility after one year, was not outside the range of a proper and proportionate sentence for the offences committed.

Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders