Stanley v Tasmania - [2015] TASCCA 24

[2015] TASCCA 24

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

CITATION: Stanley v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 24

PARTIES:  STANLEY, Christopher Stephen
  v
  THE STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 253/2014
DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26 May 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent, Porter and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Power to substitute verdict or sentence – Other particular cases – Appellant convicted of contempt by refusing to give evidence in a criminal trial – Assertion sentencing judge erred by failing to adopt correct procedure and failing to inform himself about matters relevant to the exercise of his sentencing discretion and that in any event sentence manifestly excessive – Determination that other sentence not warranted in law despite finding errors made in process adopted by sentencing judge.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3549]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K Edwards
             Respondent:  J Hartnett
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASCCA 24
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 24/2015
File No CCA 253/2014

CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN STANLEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
PORTER J
PEARCE J
7 December 2015

Order of the Court (26 May 2015):

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 24/2015
File No CCA 253/2014

CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN STANLEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J

7 December 2015

The appellant was charged with and convicted of contempt of Court by the learned Chief Justice on 21 March 2014. He was sentenced to serve a period of six months' imprisonment which sentence was to be served cumulatively to any sentence already being served. On 3 April 2014, a notice of appeal was filed in respect of the sentence imposed.
The appeal was heard with amended grounds on 26 May 2015. The appeal was dismissed on the day, with reasons to follow. These are my reasons for joining in the order dismissing the appeal.
By way of background, the appellant was charged on complaint with one count of aggravated armed robbery. He was charged jointly with Elias Maffeking Kefalianos. The allegation was that they entered the Ridgely Roadhouse on 13 January 2013 armed with a firearm and stole property, in the process threatening staff. The State subsequently filed an indictment in respect of the appellant and, on 29 May 2013, he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. On appeal, that sentence was increased to three years with a non-parole period of 18 months. That order was made on 8 October 2013. One of the judges on that appeal was the Chief Justice.
On 19 March 2014, the trial of Mr Kefalianos commenced before the Chief Justice and the appellant was called to give evidence. He refused to do so and, as a consequence, was…

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 Stanley v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Stanley v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 24
Case: [2015] TASCCA 24
Decision Date: 7 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanley appealed his conviction for contempt of court, arising from his refusal to give evidence in a criminal trial. The appeal was heard by Tennent, Porter and Pearce JJ of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Stanley contended that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to follow the correct procedure and by not adequately informing himself of matters relevant to the exercise of his sentencing discretion. He also argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in procedure and in the exercise of discretion, and whether the sentence was demonstrably excessive. The Court was required to consider the appropriate sentencing principles for contempt of court and the extent to which any errors in the sentencing process would warrant intervention.

The Full Court acknowledged that errors had been made in the process adopted by the sentencing judge. However, despite these findings, the Court determined that the sentence imposed was not unwarranted in law. Consequently, the appeal 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.