Tringrove v Tasmania (No 2) - [2015] TASCCA 17

[2015] TASCCA 17

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Tringrove v Tasmania (No 2) [2015] TASCCA 17

PARTIES:  TRINGROVE, Denis Ross
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1271/2013
DELIVERED ON:  19 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 August 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing procedure – Other matters – Re-sentencing by Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentence of imprisonment cumulative with sentence subject to second appeal.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3340]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  K Baumeler
           Respondent:  P Sherriff
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASCCA 17
Number of paragraphs: 8

Serial No 17/2015
File No 1271/2013

DENIS ROSS TRINGROVE v STATE OF TASMANIA (NO 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
19 August 2015

Order of the Court

Appellant sentenced to one year's imprisonment, cumulative with the sentence he is currently serving.

That in the event of the appellant's current sentence being quashed on appeal, the commencement date of this sentence is to be 14 July 2014.

That the appellant not be eligible for parole until he has served six months of this sentence.

That the appellant pay Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd $216,000 as compensation for its losses.

That the appellant pay his victims of crimes compensation levies amounting to $600 within 28 days after his release from prison.

Serial No 17/2015
File No 1271/2013

DENIS ROSS TRINGROVE v STATE OF TASMANIA (NO 2 )

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
19 August 2015

The appellant has been brought before the Court for re-sentencing on 12 charges of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. Between Easter 2008 and November 2008, he charged a company named Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd a total of $237,600 inclusive of GST for the cleaning of pens at a fish farm, but he had not done any of the work that he charged for. He submitted 12 fraudulent invoices during that period and received full payment from the company.
The history of the proceedings can be summarised as follows:
· During 2013 the appellant and another man were tried together on 44 charges, including the 12 charges mentioned. Those charges related to 44 fraudulent invoices and a period from December 2006 to November 2008. Each invoice was submitted by the appellant to the company. He charged $844,800 for cleaning 512 pens. The eleventh invoice, for $19,800, remained unpaid because something went wrong with an electronic transfer of funds. The two accused were therefore charged with 43 counts of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage, and one charge of attempting to commit that crime. A jury found both men guilty on every charge. On 20 December 2013, Tennent J sentenced the appellant to four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years.
· Both men appealed. This Court allowed both appeals: Tringrove…

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 Tringrove v Tasmania (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Tringrove v Tasmania (No 2) [2015] TASCCA 17
Case: [2015] TASCCA 17
Decision Date: 19 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ, considered the appeal of Tringrove against a sentence imposed following a conviction. The central dispute concerned the imposition of a cumulative sentence of imprisonment, particularly in light of a potential future appeal against the sentence Tringrove was already serving.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Tringrove, specifically whether a new term of imprisonment should be served consecutively to his existing sentence. A key legal issue was how to structure the new sentence to account for the possibility that his current term of imprisonment might be quashed on appeal, and to ensure that the commencement date of the new sentence was appropriately fixed in such an event. The court also had to consider the appellant's eligibility for parole and the imposition of compensation orders.

The court reasoned that the sentence should be structured to reflect the gravity of the offence and to provide certainty regarding its commencement. It ordered that Tringrove be sentenced to one year's imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with his current sentence. Crucially, the court provided for the eventuality of the appellant's current sentence being quashed on appeal, stipulating that in such circumstances, the new sentence would commence on 14 July 2014. Furthermore, the court ordered that Tringrove would not be eligible for parole until he had served six months of this new sentence, and also imposed compensation orders requiring him to pay $216,000 to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and victim compensation levies totalling $600 within 28 days of his release from prison.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appellant sentenced to one year's imprisonment, cumulative with the sentence he is currently serving.

2. That in the event of the appellant's current sentence being quashed on appeal, the commencement date of this sentence is to be 14 July 2014.

3. That the appellant not be eligible for parole until he has served six months of this sentence.

4. That the appellant pay Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd $216,000 as compensation for its losses.

5. That the appellant pay his victims of crimes compensation levies amounting to $600 within 28 days after his release from prison.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.