The Attorney-General v Gee - [2003] TASSC 40

[2003] TASSC 40

CITATION: The Attorney-General v Gee [2003] TASSC 40

PARTIES:  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  v
  GEE, Troy Paul

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 26/2003
DELIVERED ON:  23 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  27 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Slicer and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Purpose of sentence - Deterrence - Armed robbery - General deterrence significant element in exercise of sentencing discretion.

Everett and Phillips v R (1994) 72 A Crim R 422; O'Brien v R [2000] TASSC 117; Devine v R (1993) 2 Tas R 458, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [827]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  C J Rheinberger
           Respondent:  K L Baumeler
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 40
Number of Paragraphs: 15

Serial No 40/2003
File No CCA 26/2003

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TROY PAUL GEE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
SLICER J
EVANS J
23 June 2003

Orders of the Court

The sentence is quashed.
In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to two years' imprisonment to commence on 15 November 2002.
The execution of the last six months of that sentence is suspended upon condition that the respondent be of good behaviour for 18 months after his release from prison.
The respondent is not eligible for parole until the expiration of nine months from 15 November 2002.

Serial No 40/2003
File No CCA 26/2003

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TROY PAUL GEE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
23 June 2003

The respondent to this appeal pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery. The crime was committed on 10 November 2002 at the KFC outlet at Bridgewater on the outskirts of Hobart. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment to take effect from 15 November 2002, the day he went into custody. An order was made that the respondent not be eligible for parole until the expiration of six months from that date.

The Attorney-General appealed against that sentence upon the single ground that it was manifestly inadequate. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 27 May 2003, the Court made the following orders:

1The sentence is quashed.
2In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to two years' imprisonment to commence on 15 November 2002.
3The execution of the last six months of that sentence is suspended upon condition that the respondent be of good behaviour for 18 months after his release from prison.
4The respondent is not eligible for parole until the expiration of nine months from 15 November 2002.

At the time the Court made that order, I said that I would publish my reasons for joining in the making of that order at a later date. These are those reasons.

At the time of the commission of the crime, the respondent was…

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 The Attorney-General v Gee

Details

AGLC: The Attorney-General v Gee [2003] TASSC 40
Case: [2003] TASSC 40
Decision Date: 23 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the Attorney-General contested the sentence imposed on Troy Paul Gee, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The crime occurred at a KFC outlet in Bridgewater on 10 November 2002. Gee, who was almost 21 years old at the time, entered the outlet armed with a sawn-off shotgun, demanded money, and escaped with $1,235. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, starting from 15 November 2002, with a six-month non-parole period. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was inadequate and appealed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania considered the appeal, focusing on the need for a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crime and its deterrent effect. The court acknowledged Gee's guilty plea, his early remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation but emphasized the importance of general deterrence in cases of armed robbery, especially when firearms are involved. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately address these factors and quashed the sentence.

In re-sentencing, the Court imposed a two-year imprisonment term, commencing on 15 November 2002, with the last six months suspended on the condition of good behavior for 18 months post-release. Gee is ineligible for parole until nine months from the start of his sentence. This decision aimed to balance the need for deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation while considering the constraints of a Crown appeal.

Orders