Tasmania v Green - [2017] TASSC 70

[2017] TASSC 70

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Green [2017] TASSC 70

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  GREEN, Nathan Michael

FILE NOS: 392/2015

316/2017

DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 November 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous criminal – Declaration – Violent crimes committed in prison – Extent of likely risk to community.

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 19.
Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611; Read v The Queen (1994) 3 Tas R 387, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3357]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  D J Coates SC
             Respondent:  R Mainwaring
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 70
Number of paragraphs: 44

Serial No 70/2017
File Nos 392/2015
316/2017

STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN MICHAEL GREEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

7 December 2017

Mr Green has pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding and a charge of unlawfully destroying property. The Crown has applied for him to be declared to be a dangerous criminal pursuant to s 19 of the Sentencing Act 1997 ("the Act"). Under s 19(4), the making of such a declaration would result in him not being eligible to be released from custody unless and until a judge makes an order discharging that declaration, even if he finishes serving all prison sentences imposed upon him.
Mr Green committed the crime of wounding on 24 October 2015 at Her Majesty's Prison at Risdon, where he was and still is an inmate. That afternoon, he was being escorted to the laundry by four correctional officers. As one of them went to unlock the door to the laundry, Mr Green lunged at him and stabbed him in the left side of his jaw with a makeshift weapon. He was restrained and taken back to his cell. The victim was treated by prison medical staff and taken to hospital. He suffered a 3 mm stab wound, with some mild swelling and bruising, over the left side of his jaw. There was no fracture. He was given a tetanus booster and tested for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV. He did not contract any of those diseases, but it no doubt took some months for the doctors to be certain that all was well. The officer did not provide a victim impact statement. Mr Green took part in an interview with police officers the day after the attack. He said that he had made the makeshift weapon out of the lid of a biro.
Mr Green did not know the officer whom he stabbed. Rightly or wrongly, he was aggrieved by refusals by other officers to give him items or privileges that he had requested. He became so angry and frustrated that he stabbed an innocent man in order to send a…

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 Tasmania v Green

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Green [2017] TASSC 70
Case: [2017] TASSC 70
Decision Date: 7 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Green, the respondent, who had previously been convicted of serious violent crimes, was facing sentencing for additional offences committed in prison. The state sought a declaration that the respondent was a dangerous criminal under the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas). The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining whether the respondent met the criteria for such a declaration. The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "dangerous criminal" and whether the respondent's history of violent conduct in prison warranted a declaration under the Act. The court needed to assess the extent of the risk the respondent posed to the community and whether the statutory criteria for such a declaration were satisfied.

The court examined the respondent's history, including previous convictions and the nature of the crimes committed in prison. It found that the respondent had a history of serious violent behaviour both before and during incarceration, which indicated a significant risk to the community if released. The court held that the term "dangerous criminal" in the Sentencing Act was intended to apply to individuals who pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the community due to their violent tendencies. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct met the statutory criteria for such a declaration. The court emphasised the importance of the dangerousness criterion and the need to protect the community from individuals who are likely to commit further serious violent crimes.

The court declared the respondent a dangerous criminal under the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas). This declaration allows for extended monitoring and stricter control measures to be imposed on the respondent. The court's decision underscores the importance of preventive measures in managing individuals who pose a significant risk to public safety. The court ordered that the respondent be subject to additional supervision and restrictions beyond the standard sentencing measures, reflecting the gravity of the risk he posed to the community.

Orders