COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Streets v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 13
PARTIES: STREETS, Timothy Robin STREETS, Justin Michael v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NOS: 2206/2015
2208/2015
DELIVERED ON: 20 September 2016 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 26 August 2016 JUDGMENT OF: Tennent, Wood and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Appellants alleging sentence manifestly excessive – Pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated armed robbery – Two robberies of same pharmacy using knife – Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment with parole eligibility after half not manifestly excessive.
Criminal Code (Tas), s 402(4). Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: First Appellant: A Hensley Second Appellant: A Hensley Respondent: J Dennison Solicitors: First Appellant: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania Second Appellant: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 13 Number of paragraphs: 28
Serial No 13/2016
File Nos 2206/2015 2208/2015
TIMOTHY ROBIN STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA JUSTIN MICHAEL STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J WOOD J PEARCE J 20 September 2016
Order of the Court (26 August 2016)
Appeals allowed.
Sentences imposed by sentencing judge unaltered except to commence on 3 August 2015 instead of 4 August 2015.
Serial No 13/2016
File Nos 2206/2015 2208/2015
TIMOTHY ROBIN STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA JUSTIN MICHAEL STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J 20 September 2016
I have had the benefit of reading in draft form the reasons of Pearce J for the manner in which this appeal has been disposed of. I agree with those reasons.
File Nos 2206/2015 2208/2015
TIMOTHY ROBIN STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA JUSTIN MICHAEL STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
WOOD J 20 September 2016
I agree with the reasons for judgment of Pearce J. They accurately reflect my reasons for concluding that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the appeal in each case should succeed only to the limited extent regarding the commencement date of the term of imprisonment.
File Nos 2206/2015 2208/2015
TIMOTHY ROBIN STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA JUSTIN MICHAEL STREETS v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
PEARCE J 20 September 2016
Timothy Streets and Justin Streets were jointly charged with two counts of aggravated armed robbery. They pleaded guilty. On 29 October 2015, Estcourt J sentenced them both to imprisonment for five years. His Honour ordered that the sentence commence on 4 August 2015 and that they not be eligible for parole until having served half of the sentence. This appeal challenges the sentence on the ground that, in each case, it is manifestly excessive. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court announced that it was not satisfied that the ground…
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 Streets v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Streets v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 13
Case
[2016] TASCCA 13
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Streets v Tasmania concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the appellants before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellants had pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated armed robbery, both involving the same pharmacy and the use of a knife. They argued that the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentences of five years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving half the term, were demonstrably too severe given the circumstances of the offences and the appellants' guilty pleas.
The Full Court considered the grounds for interfering with a sentence, which include it being manifestly excessive or inadequate. In this instance, the Court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. However, the Court allowed the appeals on a minor technicality regarding the commencement date of the sentences.
Consequently, the appeals were allowed, but the sentences themselves remained unaltered, save for a slight adjustment to the commencement date, which was ordered to be 3 August 2015 instead of 4 August 2015.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeals allowed.
2. Sentences imposed by sentencing judge unaltered except to commence on 3 August 2015 instead of 4 August 2015.