Legal Research
Cases
Vincze v Judges

Vincze v Judges

Case [2024] TASSC 43 20 August 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2024] TASSC 43

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Vincze v Judges [2024] TASSC 43
PARTIES:	VINCZE, Frank
v
JUDGES, Russell
FILE NO:	607/2023
DELIVERED ON:	20 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Whether recording conviction was excessive considering circumstances of offending and potential impact on employment prospects – Appropriate balancing exercise undertaken - Magistrate’s decision within proper exercise of sentencing discretion.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Fresh evidence and events occurring after sentence – Whether evidence of matters occurring between imposition of sentence and appeal hearing can be considered on determination of review – Evidence regarding impact of conviction on employment prospects – Held evidence of subsequent events cannot demonstrate error – Evidence of subsequent events not considered.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3524]

Cases cited:

Abbott v The Queen [2019] WASCA 90
Attorney-General v Smith [1993] TASSC 10
Barnsley v Ashdown and Ashdown [1977] TASSC 40
Barrett v Wilson [2015] TASSC 3, 69 MVR 333
Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25
Cannell v Hughes [2014] TASSC 41

Coppleman v Godfrey [2014] TASSC 60; McKenna v Freeman [2017] TASSC 64

Director of Public Prosecutions v Chatters [2011] TASCCA 8
DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101
LAT v Western Australia [2018] WASCA 215
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 184, R v Davidson [2008] VSCA 188
R v PFD [2001] VSCA 198

Turner v Driver [2005] TASSC 85, Traynor v McCullough [2011] TASSC 41 218 Crim R 177

Woods v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 179

Legislation:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas), ss 16(q), 22.
Criminal Code Act 192 (Tas) s 402 (4), s 402(4A)(a), s 402(4A)(b)
Justices Act 1959, (Tas) s 110(2)(AA), s 110 (2AB),

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 9(a), (b) and (c)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr Cameron Scott
Respondent: Ms Claire Darvell

Solicitors:

Appellant: Brooke Winter Solicitors
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 43
Number of paragraphs:	46

Serial No 43/2024 File No 607/2023

FRANK VINCZE v RUSSELL JUDGES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
20 August 2024

1             The applicant moves this Court to review a sentence imposed on him by Magistrate Brown on 8 March 2023 in respect of one count of common assault. The sentence followed the magistrate's finding of guilt after a contested hearing.
2             The grounds of the review contained in the notice include two which attack the finding of guilt. However, on the hearing of this matter, these grounds were abandoned and the review is now limited to the sentence, with a single ground that asserts that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case.
3             The sentence imposed by the magistrate…

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 Vincze v Judges

Details

AGLC: Vincze v Judges [2024] TASSC 43
Case: [2024] TASSC 43
Decision Date: 20 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincze v Judges is a case concerning the defendant's appeal against his sentence. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the defendant argued that the sentence of recording his conviction was excessive, considering the circumstances of the offending and the potential impact on his employment prospects. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the relevant sentencing principles and the unique circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the magistrate had undertaken the appropriate balancing exercise. The court needed to consider whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the sentencing principles set out in the relevant legislation and whether the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court also needed to consider the potential impact of the sentence on the defendant's employment prospects and whether this was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was within the proper exercise of their sentencing discretion. The court noted that the sentencing principles require the court to consider the circumstances of the offending, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the magistrate had undertaken the appropriate balancing exercise and had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The court also noted that the potential impact on the defendant's employment prospects was a relevant factor to consider, but it was not the only factor, and the court could not conclude that the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case and that the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court emphasised that the sentencing principles require the court to consider all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence and that the potential impact on the defendant's employment prospects is only one of many relevant factors to consider. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was consistent with the sentencing principles and that the magistrate's decision was within the proper exercise of their sentencing discretion.

Orders