Legal Research
Cases
Sadler v Tasmania

Sadler v Tasmania

Case [2022] TASCCA 9 2 September 2022

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2022] TASCCA 9

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Sadler v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 9
PARTIES:	SADLER, Jack Harrison Vincent
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 1363/2021
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	30 August 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Estcourt J, Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Murder – Intentional killing – Planned execution – Body dismembered – Head and limbs disposed of in roadside garbage bins and not recovered – Sentence of

32 years' imprisonment with parole ineligibility period of 20 years not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: R Mainwaring
Respondent: E Judd

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tasmania Legal Aid
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASCCA 9
Number of paragraphs:	36

Serial No 9/2022

File No CCA 1363/2021

JACK HARRISON VINCENT SADLER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BLOW CJ ESTCOURT J MARSHALL AJ 2 September 2022
Order of the Court (30 August 2022):

1 Appeal dismissed.
2 No 9/2022

File No CCA 1363/2021

JACK HARRISON VINCENT SADLER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ
2 September 2022

1             On 28 May 2021 Pearce J sentenced the appellant, Jack Harrison Vincent Sadler, to imprisonment for 32 years on a charge of murder, and ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served 20 years of that sentence. The appellant appealed, contending that the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive. On 30 August 2022 this Court dismissed the appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date. I joined in the dismissal of the appeal for all of the reasons referred to in the judgment of Estcourt J.
2             There is a little that I would like to add in relation to the impact of this murder, and the way in which the appellant dealt with the victim's body after the killing, on the partner and family of the victim. The learned sentencing judge received victim impact statements from the victim's mother, his father, one of his sisters, one of his brothers and his partner. Each of them, as well as other family members, had to deal somehow with the terrible information as to what had happened to a person they loved.
3             Anything that a murderer does with his or her victim's body shortly after the murder is relevant for sentencing purposes: Director of Public Prosecutions v England [1999] 2 VR 259; Bell v The Queen
[2003] WASCA 216 at [23]–[25], [61]–[62]; Colledge v Western Australia [2007] WSCA 211 at [16]; R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 at [60]–[61]. The appellant's conduct in this dismembering
and disposing of the body, and the impact of that conduct on the partner and family of the victim,…

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 Sadler v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Sadler v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 9
Case: [2022] TASCCA 9
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sadler appealed against a sentence of 32 years' imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following his conviction for murder. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence of 32 years' imprisonment with a 20-year non-parole period for the intentional killing of the victim, which involved a planned execution and the subsequent dismemberment and disposal of the victim's body.

The Court considered the gravity of the offence, noting the premeditated nature of the killing and the disturbing manner in which the victim's remains were disposed of, which prevented a proper burial and caused further distress to the victim's family. The Court applied the principles of sentencing for murder, taking into account aggravating factors such as the brutality and callousness of the act, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not outside the range of what was appropriate for such a serious offence and was therefore not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders