Tasmania v Lockwood - [2023] TASSC 5

[2023] TASSC 5

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Lockwood [2023] TASSC 5
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
LOCKWOOD, Corey Adam
FILE NO:	715/2020
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATES:	15 December 2022, 27, 28 February 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Miscellaneous offences – Other miscellaneous offences and matters – Persistent family violence – Findings of fact.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 170A. Aust Dig Criminal Law [2288]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

The State: L Fox
Accused: F Cangelosi

Solicitors:

The State: Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: The Cangelosi Firm

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASSC 5
Number of paragraphs:	115

Serial No 5/2023 File No 715/2020

THE STATE OF TASMANIA v COREY ADAM LOCKWOOD

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

BLOW CJ
5 April 2023

1             The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of persistent family violence, contrary to s 170A(2) of the Criminal Code. The particulars of the charge allege that he committed persistent family violence against his former wife between about 2004 and 2018. For sentencing purposes it became necessary for me to make findings of fact. On 16 March 2023 I made findings that were, generally speaking, adverse to the accused. These are my reasons for my findings. The findings are set out at the end of these reasons.
2 By virtue of s 170A(3) of the Criminal Code, an accused person is guilty of the crime of persistent family violence if he or she commits an unlawful family violence act in relation to his or her spouse or partner on at least three occasions. The Crown asserted that the accused committed the crime charged by committing 24 crimes against the complainant during the relevant period. At a directions hearing on 26 May 2022 the accused, through his counsel, admitted that he committed eight of the alleged crimes, but denied committing the other sixteen. In relation to some of the admitted crimes, the particulars were disputed in part. The admissions related to some of the less serious crimes alleged by the Crown, comprising injuries to property and some minor assaults. The disputed allegations included nine allegations of rape, one of attempted rape, one of assaulting a pregnant woman, and one of assault.
3             On 26 May 2022 the Crown delivered particulars of the 24 alleged unlawful family violence acts, numbered from 1 to 24. I will refer to those allegations by those numbers. I conducted a hearing relating to the factual disputes. At the conclusion of that hearing, counsel for the Crown conceded that the evidence did not support allegation 16, which was an allegation of injury to property.
4             When disputes of fact arise in sentencing proceedings, the Crown bears the onus of proving facts adverse to the interests of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the accused bears the onus of proving mitigating facts on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54

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 Lockwood

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Lockwood [2023] TASSC 5
Case: [2023] TASSC 5
Decision Date: 5 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Lockwood, the appellant was convicted of persistent family violence. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal in Tasmania, which was presided over by Atkinson JA, with the other members of the court being Ellicott and Lee JJA. The appeal questioned whether the trial judge was correct to find the appellant guilty of persistent family violence.

The appellant argued that there was an error of law in the trial judge’s reasoning process and that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the appellant was guilty of persistent family violence. The court examined the statutory definition of persistent family violence and the trial judge’s approach to the evidence. The court found that the trial judge was correct in his approach to the evidence and the findings of fact. The court held that there was no error of law in the trial judge’s reasoning process and that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant was guilty of persistent family violence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant was guilty of persistent family violence and that the trial judge was correct in his approach to the evidence and the findings of fact. The court held that there was no error of law in the trial judge’s reasoning process. The appellant’s conviction was upheld.

Orders