Legal Research
Cases
Trueman v Tasmania

Trueman v Tasmania

Case [2009] TASSC 29 11 May 2009

Type to search within this case.

[2009] TASSC 29

CITATION: Trueman v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 29

PARTIES:  TRUEMAN, Fabian James Ackerley
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  932/2008
DELIVERED ON:  11 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 March 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Slicer and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Other matters – Whether a failure to give sufficient reasons a ground of appeal.

Tame v Fingleton (1974) 8 SASR 507; Shrubsole v Rodriguez (1978) 18 SASR 233; Massey v Muir unreported A37/1976; Bastick v Cochrane unreported 77/1997; R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1006]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  W A Ayliffe
             Respondent:  A L Shand
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Ogilvie Jennings
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 29
Number of paragraphs: 70

Serial No 29/2009
File No 932/2008

FABIAN JAMES ACKERLEY TRUEMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
SLICER J
TENNENT J
11 May 2009

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 29/2009
File No 932/2008

FABIAN JAMES ACKERLEY TRUEMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  11 May 2009

The appellant appealed against a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for one count of assault. The grounds of appeal include inadequate reasons, inadequate and improper methods of reasoning and failure to take into account relevant matters or to give them any weight.

It is not a ground of the appeal that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In my view it was the appropriate and correct sentence, so that even if the grounds of appeal were made out, I would dismiss the appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. He admitted punching the complainant to the head and face a number of times and causing him to fall to the ground as a result. However, he disputed the State's assertion that he stomped on the complainant's head a number of times. As a result, a hearing was conducted to enable the sentencing judge to determine the facts in issue. Evidence was given by six witnesses, including the appellant and the complainant, following which the learned judge made findings of fact.

The factual basis for the sentence

At about 5am on Sunday, 22 June 2008, the appellant was on the street outside the caged area at the front of the Isobar nightclub. The complainant was in the same area, waiting for a taxi with his brother, his brother's girlfriend and a friend. The accused was aged 21 and the complainant 24. They did not know each other.

The appellant walked past the complainant with a number of others. As he did so, the complainant asked if any of the appellant's group had a cigarette lighter he could use. The appellant replied, "Fuck off mate, I don't smoke".…

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 Trueman v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Trueman v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 29
Case: [2009] TASSC 29
Decision Date: 11 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trueman v Tasmania involved an appeal by the respondent, Trueman, against his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent contested both the validity of his conviction and the severity of the sentence imposed by the Tasmanian Supreme Court. The central dispute centred on whether the failure to provide adequate reasons for the sentence could serve as a valid ground for appeal.

The primary legal issue addressed by the Court was whether the absence of sufficient reasons for the sentence constituted a ground for appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1930 (Tas). The respondent argued that the failure to provide detailed reasons for the sentence was a procedural error that warranted the appeal. The Court was required to determine whether this procedural flaw could independently justify the appeal or if it needed to be considered in conjunction with other grounds of appeal.

The Court found that the absence of sufficient reasons for the sentence could indeed be a ground for appeal, as it represented a procedural defect. The Court emphasised the importance of providing clear and detailed reasons for sentencing to ensure transparency and to allow for effective judicial review. The Court held that while such procedural errors might not always necessitate a new trial, they could warrant interference with the sentence if they significantly impacted the fairness of the proceedings. Ultimately, the Court determined that the failure to give sufficient reasons was a sufficient ground for appeal, leading to the conclusion that the appeal against the sentence should be upheld.

Orders