Roberts v State of Tasmania

Roberts appealed against a sentence imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal concerned the procedure for resolving factual disputes between the State and an accused person when those disputes are relevant to the determination of a sentence following a plea of guilty.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was how a sentencing judge should proceed when there is a conflict between the facts presented by the prosecution and those advanced by the defence, and where that conflict bears upon the appropriate sentence. Specifically, the Court had to determine the proper approach to establishing the factual basis for sentencing in such circumstances.

The Court reasoned that where a factual dispute is relevant to sentencing, the sentencing judge must resolve that dispute. This may involve the judge making findings of fact based on the evidence presented, or it may involve the judge accepting the version of facts put forward by the defence if it is not demonstrably false or unreasonable. In this instance, the Court found that the sentencing judge had erred by proceeding to sentence on a factual basis that was not adequately established and which did not properly take into account the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and a new sentence was imposed, comprising six months' imprisonment backdated to 30 March 2011, suspended on the condition of no further offences punishable by imprisonment for three years, and a community service order of 100 hours.