Sclater v Tasmania - [2015] TASCCA 26

[2015] TASCCA 26

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

CITATION: Sclater v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 26

PARTIES:  SCLATER, Shaun
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 434/2015
DELIVERED ON:  10 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11 November 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Tennent and Estcourt JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Arson and charges relating to other fires – Sentence of two years' imprisonment with one year suspended.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R Mainwaring
             Respondent:  Y Prenc
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid of Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASCCA 26
Number of paragraphs: 48

Serial No 26/2015
File No CCA 434/2015

SHAUN SCLATER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
TENNENT J
ESTCOURT J
10 December 2015

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 26/2015
File No CCA 434/2015

SHAUN SCLATER v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
10 December 2015

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Estcourt J in draft form. I agree with him that this appeal should be dismissed. I agree with everything he has written. There are some comments that I would like to make.
In this case there were a number of substantial matters that weighed in favour of a lenient sentence. The appellant was only 19 years old when he committed the crimes in question. He had no prior convictions. When he committed the crimes in question, he was in an unfortunate emotional state as a result of learning that he was not welcome to visit his child, as previously arranged. He made significant admissions to the police. He pleaded guilty to the charges, and thus saved the State the cost and inconvenience of a trial. He was very sorry for what he had done. It was unlikely that he would re-offend. Whilst he started three fires, the most serious by far, which resulted in the destruction of the Cygnet Tennis Club building, involved the commission of the crime of arson on the basis of recklessness, not intention. That is to say, he did not have a positive intention to burn the building down, but was aware of the possibility that his fire would cause the building to catch fire, and was recklessly indifferent to that possibility. That was the result of his emotional state on the night in question. There was no premeditation. The fires were the result of drunkenness and anger, not a desire for destruction or revenge. Since the night when he committed these crimes, he had resolved his problems with his former partner, formed a relationship with another woman, obtained employment, organised regular contact with his child, sought psychiatric advice, commenced taking medication that resulted in improved mood, reduced his alcohol consumption,…

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 Sclater v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Sclater v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 26
Case: [2015] TASCCA 26
Decision Date: 10 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the respondent, Sclater, who had pleaded guilty to charges of arson and other fire-related offences. The appeal was brought before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Tennent and Estcourt JJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment, with one year suspended, was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby providing grounds for interference on appeal.

The Court considered the nature of the offences, the respondent's prior record, and the sentencing principles applicable to such matters. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not demonstrably wrong or unjust. The Court applied established principles of sentencing, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of rehabilitation and individual circumstances.

Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.