Legal Research
Cases
S v Tasmania

S v Tasmania

Case [2019] TASCCA 3 14 March 2019

Appeal

Charge

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2019] TASCCA 3

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

CITATION: S v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 3

PARTIES:  S, J R
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 2645/2018
DELIVERED ON:  14 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  12 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J, Geason J, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against conviction – Grounds for appeal – Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict – Whether appellant was denied fair trial as a result of summing-up – Whether trial judge's redirection adequately addressed factual error in summing-up.

Aust Digest Criminal Law [3476]

Criminal Law – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for appeal – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Indecent assault – Aggravated sexual assault – Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M Doyle
             Respondent:  E Avery
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Grant Tucker
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASCCA 3
Number of paragraphs: 53

Serial No 3/2019
File No CCA 2645/2018

J R S v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
14 March 2019

Orders of the Court:

Appeal dismissed

Serial No 3/2019
File No CCA 2645/2018

J R S v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
14 March 2019

The appeal

On 12 September 2018 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of indecent assault and two counts of aggravated sexual assault. All of the charges related to indecent acts that he was alleged to have performed upon his 9-year-old daughter (the complainant), on two days in July 2016.
He appealed to this Court on the ground that the jury verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. He also appealed on the ground that the sentence imposed on him by Blow CJ of 3 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months was manifestly excessive.
The written submissions did not address the ground of appeal that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, but rather they asserted that the appellant did not receive a fair trial at law as a result of learned trial judge's summing-up. While the notice of appeal contained a purported ground which read "such further other grounds for appeal on provision of the transcript", no new ground of appeal has been foreshadowed, much less made the subject of an application for leave to amend.
The Court heard the appellant's submissions notwithstanding that they did not address the grounds of appeal other than as to sentence, and notwithstanding that the stated ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory was abandoned in oral submissions as a discrete ground.
The appeal was dismissed by the Court on the hearing on 14 March 2019 with reasons to be published at a later time. These are my reasons for joining in the order of the Court.

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 S v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: S v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 3
Case: [2019] TASCCA 3
Decision Date: 14 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, S, appealed against a conviction in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The central dispute concerned whether the appellant had received a fair trial, with the grounds for appeal focusing on the adequacy of the trial judge's summing-up to the jury.

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the verdict reached by the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to alleged deficiencies in the trial judge's summing-up. Secondly, the court had to consider whether any factual errors made by the trial judge during the summing-up were adequately addressed and corrected by subsequent redirection.

The court analysed the trial judge's directions to the jury, paying close attention to the specific passages identified by the appellant as problematic. The judges considered whether the summing-up, when viewed as a whole, presented the relevant evidence and legal principles to the jury in a manner that was fair and balanced. Crucially, the court assessed whether the redirection provided by the trial judge effectively remedied any misstatements or omissions, ensuring that the jury was not misled in their deliberations. The legal principles applied involved the established tests for determining whether a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, and the standard for assessing the adequacy of judicial directions in criminal trials.

Orders