Legal Research
Cases
SRR v Tasmania

SRR v Tasmania

Case [2023] TASCCA 6 8 June 2023

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2023] TASCCA 6

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	SRR v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 6
PARTIES:	SRR
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	3114/2021
DELIVERED ON:	8 June 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood J, Jago J, Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law- Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Persistent sexual abuse of a child - Father indecently assaulted and raped young daughter over period of approximately 10 months - Numerous aggravating factors – Sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 125A. Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: L Brett

Solicitors:

Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASCCA 6
Number of paragraphs:	26

Serial No 6/2023

File No 3114/2021

SRR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL WOOD J JAGO J MARSHALL AJ 8 June 2023
Order of the Court:
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 6/2023

File No:3114/2021

SRR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
WOOD J
JAGO J
MARSHALL AJ
8 June 2023

1             On 19 November 2022 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of persistent sexual abuse of a child contrary to s 125A of the Criminal Code. On 30 November 2022 the trial judge sentenced the appellant to 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years.
2             The appellant has appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. He contends that the sentence constituted by the head sentence and the non-parole period is manifestly excessive.
3 The trial judge also ordered that the Registrar appointed under s 42 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 place the appellant's name on the Register under that Act and that the appellant comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of 15 years from his release from prison. No challenge is made as to the appropriateness of that order.
4             The principles applicable to sentencing appeals, where the sole ground is an allegation that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances are well settled. In Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Pearce [2015] TASCCA 1, Pearce J, with whom Blow CJ and Porter AJ agreed, summarised the principles relevant to appeals such as this at [8]-[9] as follows:

"[8]

As in all such appeals as this, it is necessary to refer to the principles which limit the circumstances in which intervention of an appellate court is justified. The court sits to correct material error: Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54, (2000) 202 CLR 321 per Kirby J at [57]-[60]. Where no specific error is alleged, this Court must be persuaded of error of the second type referred to in House v The King [1936] JCA 40;

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 SRR v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: SRR v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 6
Case: [2023] TASCCA 6
Decision Date: 8 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SRR, appealed against a sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The sentence followed his conviction for the persistent indecent assault and rape of his young daughter over a period of approximately ten months.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences and the presence of numerous aggravating factors.

Wood and Jago JJ, with Marshall AJ concurring, dismissed the appeal. Their Honours found that the sentencing judge had correctly identified and given appropriate weight to the significant aggravating factors, including the prolonged duration of the offending, the appellant's position of trust as the father, the extreme vulnerability of the victim, and the severe psychological harm inflicted. The court applied the established principles for appellate review of sentences, confirming that a sentence will only be overturned if it is demonstrably outside the range of a reasonable sentence, which was not the case here. The sentence was therefore not found to be manifestly excessive.

Orders