Viney v Clark - [2025] TASSC 44

[2025] TASSC 44

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Viney v Clark [2025] TASSC 44
PARTIES:	VINEY, Coden James
v
CLARK, Natalie (Acting Sergeant)
FILE NO:	2462/2025
DELIVERED ON:	24 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	16 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Appeal against sentence – Applicant alleged sentence manifestly excessive – Magistrate activated 2 month suspended sentence and imposed 4 months' imprisonment and 12 month community correction order for a number of varied offences – Applicant alleged insufficient weight given to Applicant's deprived background – Specific deterrence and rehabilitation significant considerations given the Applicant's continued pattern of offending and unwillingness to abide by the law – Magistrate's decision within proper exercise of sentencing discretion – Motion to review dismissed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas)

Cases:
Barrett v Wilson [2015] TASSC 3
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Jamieson v State of Tasmania [2015] TASSC 50

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: K Toman
Respondent: B Luzza

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tasmania Legal Aid
Respondent: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 44
Number of paragraphs:	13

Serial No 44/2025 File No 2462/2025

CODEN JAMES VINEY v ACTING SERGEANT NATALIE CLARK

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
24 September 2025

1 The applicant seeks review of a sentence imposed on him by Magistrate Hughes on 4 July 2025. The sentence was imposed on the applicant's plea of guilty to a number of summary charges, in particular driving while disqualified, burglary and stealing, failing to appear in breach of bail, possessing methyl amphetamine and stealing groceries. The applicant's commission of each of these offences was in breach of a suspended sentence of two months' imprisonment and the prosecution applied, under s 27(1) of the Sentencing Act 1997, for the activation of the suspended sentence. The magistrate activated that sentence and imposed a global sentence on the pleas of guilty of four months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the activated suspended sentence, making a total custodial period of six months. The magistrate also made a community corrections order with an operational period of 12 months commencing on the applicant's release from custody.
2 The sole ground of review is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The notice to review does not assert specific error in relation to the activation of the suspended sentence, and on the hearing of the review, the applicant's counsel confirmed that no complaint is made about that aspect of the sentence. However, the combined effect of the activated sentence and the sentence imposed for the fresh matters is relevant to the question of whether the four-month sentence for the new offending is manifestly excessive. The principles applicable in respect of such a ground are well established and not in doubt. I can only interfere with the sentence if I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the absence of specific error,…

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 Viney v Clark

Details

AGLC: Viney v Clark [2025] TASSC 44
Case: [2025] TASSC 44
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Viney v Clark arose in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, where the applicant, Viney, sought a review of the sentence imposed upon him by a Magistrate. Viney was convicted of multiple offences and was given a four-month imprisonment term, coupled with a 12-month community correction order. This sentence activated a previously suspended two-month sentence. Viney contested the sentence as manifestly excessive and argued that the Magistrate did not sufficiently consider his deprived background, as well as the importance of specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was within the proper exercise of the Magistrate's sentencing discretion and whether there were any errors in the consideration of Viney's background and the aims of sentencing. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or whether it was a reasonable outcome given the nature and circumstances of the offences and Viney's criminal history.

The court held that the Magistrate's decision was within the proper exercise of sentencing discretion. It found that the Magistrate had appropriately balanced the considerations of general and specific deterrence, as well as the need for rehabilitation, with the seriousness of the offences. The court noted that Viney had a continued pattern of offending and an unwillingness to abide by the law, which justified a more severe sentence. The court was satisfied that the Magistrate had given due consideration to Viney's deprived background but found that it did not warrant a significantly lesser sentence given the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the motion to review was dismissed.

Orders