COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Stebbins v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 6
PARTIES: STEBBINS, Nicholas Mark v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: CCA 229/2015 DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2016 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 7 April 2016 JUDGMENT OF: Tennent, Estcourt and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Drug trafficking charges – Continued offending while on bail – Significant operation – Whether sentence of 12 years and six months' imprisonment with a seven year non-parole period manifestly excessive – General deterrence a significant factor.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: K Cuthbertson Respondent: D Coates SC Solicitors: Appellant: Ogilvie Jennings Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 6 Number of paragraphs: 120
Serial No 6/2016
File No CCA 229/2015
NICHOLAS MARK STEBBINS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J ESTCOURT J PEARCE J 12 May 2016
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 6/2016
File No CCA 229/2015
NICHOLAS MARK STEBBINS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J 12 May 2016
I have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment in draft form of Estcourt and Pearce JJ. I agree in substance with their reasons and would also dismiss the appeal.
File No CCA 229/2015
NICHOLAS MARK STEBBINS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
ESTCOURT J 12 May 2016
The appeal
This appeal is brought against orders of Porter J of 16 March 2015, convicting and sentencing the appellant on two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to s 12(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act2001.
There were two indictments before the learned sentencing judge alleging trafficking between 7 August 2012 and 15 January 2014, and between 1 June 2014 and 28 July 2014 respectively. The appellant had pleaded guilty to both.
His Honour regarded the crimes on the two indictments as representing one course of conduct, and on the crimes of trafficking he sentenced the appellant to 12½ years' imprisonment and ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served 7 years.
The appeal is brought on two grounds. The first is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The second is that his Honour did not give sufficient weight to the appellant's plea of guilty.
The facts
The facts are somewhat complex.
In about October 2013 Tasmania Police, assisted by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service commenced an investigation into the unlawful importation and trafficking of illicit drugs by affiliates of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club, of which the appellant, together with Joshua Williams and Luke Rusher were members.
Intercepted communications showed that the appellant had made numerous phone calls and sent text messages relating to the purchase and on-selling of the amphetamine…
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 Stebbins v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Stebbins v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 6
Case
[2016] TASCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stebbins appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following his conviction for drug trafficking offences. The appeal concerned whether the sentence of 12 years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, 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 the particular sentence, considering the nature of the drug trafficking operation, the appellant's continued offending while on bail, and the principle of general deterrence.
The Court considered the significant scale of the drug trafficking operation and the appellant's persistent engagement in criminal activity even after being granted bail. It was held that general deterrence was a crucial consideration in sentencing for such serious offences. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach, concluding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offending and the need to deter others from similar conduct.