Tasmania v Hindle - [2024] TASSC 71

[2024] TASSC 71

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Hindle [2024] TASSC 71
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
HINDLE, Jennifer Anne
FILE NO:	361/2016
DELIVERED ON:	29 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATES:	17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 September, 1, 7 October 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing procedure – Factual basis for sentence – Particular cases –Ill-treatment

of a child

Criminal Code (Tas), s 178

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Prosecution: L Mason SC, S Griffin
Defendant: C Rainbird

Solicitors:

Prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant: Craig Rainbird

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 71
Number of paragraphs:	120

Serial No 71/2024 File No 361/2016

STATE OF TASMANIA v JENNIFER HINDLE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
29 NOVEMBER 2024

1 Jennifer Hindle pleaded guilty to one count of ill-treating a child contrary to the Criminal Code, s 178(1). The person against whom the crime was committed was her grandson, Thomas Hindle. The period of ill-treatment asserted in the indictment was 1 June 2015 to 24 February 2016. Although Mrs Hindle pleaded guilty, many of the facts asserted by the prosecution during the sentencing hearing as constituting the charge were disputed. Thus, an evidentiary hearing was necessary to enable determination of the disputed facts. Evidence was called by both the prosecution and the defence. These are my findings of fact for sentencing. The published version of these reasons was edited so that different first names are used, with their agreement, for each of the children. There was no statutory provision which prohibited their identification, but the change was made in an attempt to reduce the embarrassment or distress they may experience.

The background

2 In early June 2015 Thomas Hindle and his three younger sisters, Amelia, Evelyn and Audrey, came into the care of Mrs Hindle and her husband at their home in Hobart. Meaning no disrespect to the children, who are now older, I will refer to them by their first names. When Thomas first came to Hobart he was 12. Amelia, Evelyn and Audrey were respectively aged 9, 8 and 6. They were the children of Mr and Mrs Hindle's son, Nicholas Hindle. They were born and had lived in Western Australia but were removed from the care of their parents by the child protection authority in that State in late 2014 or early 2015. The evidence of what went on before then was limited but suggests that the children's situation was highly traumatic. Their parents were seriously affected by alcohol and illicit drug abuse. Nicholas Hindle was imprisoned for family violence directed at the children's mother. The children witnessed the violence, were badly neglected by both parents and largely left to fend for themselves. School attendance was irregular and standards of hygiene and nutrition were poor. The full details of the abuse and neglect to which the children may have been subjected cannot be determined, at least on the evidence before…

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 Hindle

Details

AGLC: State of Tasmania v Hindle [2024] TASSC 71
Case: [2024] TASSC 71
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Hindle, against his sentence following a conviction for ill-treatment of a child. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining whether the sentencing procedure followed was appropriate and whether the sentence was excessive given the particular facts of the case. Hindle had been sentenced to imprisonment, which he argued was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and the adequacy of the factual basis upon which it was imposed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether the court had adequately considered the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the ill-treatment of a child. The court was required to examine whether the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction in the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles of proportionality and whether the sentence reflected the particular circumstances of the case.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the sentence imposed was excessive and did not appropriately reflect the particular circumstances of the offence. The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to sufficiently weigh the principles of proportionality and the specific aggravating factors of the case. The court emphasised that the ill-treatment of a child is a serious offence, but the sentence needed to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime. Consequently, the court varied the sentence, reducing it to a level deemed appropriate by the court. The decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing in cases involving the ill-treatment of children, ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the crime committed.

The final orders of the court included a reduction in the sentence imposed on Hindle, reflecting a sentence that the court deemed appropriate in light of the particular facts and principles of sentencing. The court’s decision emphasised the need for careful consideration of the circumstances of each case to ensure that justice is served and the principles of sentencing are upheld.

Orders