Tammaro v The King

The applicant, Tammaro, appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge. The respondent was The King. The appeal concerned the sentencing judge's decision not to order that the applicant's custodial sentence be served on home detention.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in her determination that the applicant was not a suitable person to serve his sentence on home detention, and consequently, whether the decision to decline a home detention order was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court was required to consider the two-stage process for making a home detention order under section 71 of the Sentencing Act, including the suitability of the defendant and the broader considerations of whether to make such an order.

The court reasoned that the sentencing judge correctly applied the two-stage process. In the first stage, her Honour considered the suitability of the applicant for home detention. This involved taking into account matters specified in section 71(3) of the Sentencing Act, including the potential impact on victims, the defendant's partner, and any person residing at the proposed home detention address. The sentencing judge specifically considered the concerns raised by the Department for Correctional Services regarding the impact of a home detention order on the applicant's current partner and her child. The applicant's submission that there was no basis for these concerns was rejected by the court. The court also noted that section 71(2) of the Sentencing Act sets out circumstances prohibiting a home detention order, such as if it would affect public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's approach and concluding that the decision to decline a home detention order was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.