[2012] TASCCA 5
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Wahl v State of Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 5
PARTIES: WAHL, Jade Victoriarnah
v
TASMANIA (STATE OF)
FILE NO/S: 746/2011
DELIVERED ON: 5 April 2012
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
HEARING DATE: 29 February 2012
JUDGMENT OF: Evans, Tennent and Wood JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Irrelevant factors – Error to give weight to a mental state that is an element of a more serious offence of a similar nature with which the offender could have been charged, but was not.
Lovegrove v R [1961] Tas SR 106; R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3292]
Criminal law – General matters – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Defence of persons or property – Application to cases other than murder – Application to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving.
Criminal Code Act1924 (Tas), s46.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2086]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant: D Kerr SC, G J Barnes, A M M Browning
Respondent: A R Jacobs
Solicitors:
Appellant: Hobart community Legal Centre
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2012] TASCCA 5
Number of paragraphs: 45
Serial No 5/2012
File No 746/2011
JADE VICTORIARNAH WAHL v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
EVANS J
TENNENT J
WOOD J
5 April 2012
ORDERS OF THE COURT
Appeal allowed.
The global sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant on 4 August 2011 is quashed and in its place it is ordered that she serve a global sentence of four years' imprisonment cumulative upon the sentences that she was serving, and it is ordered that she be eligible to apply for parole after serving three years of the sentence of four years' imprisonment.
Serial No 5/2012
File No 746/2011
JADE VICTORIARNAH WAHL v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
EVANS J
5 April 2012
The appellant appeals against a global sentence of eight years' imprisonment, subject to parole eligibility after six years, imposed on her by Blow J consequent upon her conviction on charges of aggravated burglary, causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, and perverting justice.
The appellant's crimes were all committed in connection with a home invasion on 19 March 2010. On that date the appellant drove her eldest son, together with three of his friends, two males and one female, to the home of another youth, Matthew Ward. The female, who gave evidence, said the three males were aged 17. The appellant knew that her son's intention was to assault Matthew Ward. She parked her vehicle across the road from the home. Her son and one of his male friends forced their way into the home, but being outnumbered, they fled. The occupants of the home included Dianne Clifford, the mother of Matthew Ward. Mrs Clifford and others approached the appellant's vehicle in a threatening manner. In some haste the appellant drove off…
Continue reading Wahl v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wahl v State of Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 5
- Case
- [2012] TASCCA 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania were whether the sentencing judge had erred by giving weight to a mental state that was an element of a more serious offence, namely dangerous driving occasioning death, with which the appellant could have been charged but was not. The Court also considered the application of the defence of persons or property to charges other than murder, specifically in the context of the appellant's actions leading to the charge of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving.
The Court reasoned that it was an error for the sentencing judge to have regard to the appellant's mental state as if it were indicative of a higher degree of culpability that would have been relevant to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning death, when such a charge was not laid. The Court held that the sentencing must be confined to the offence for which the appellant was convicted. The Court also clarified that the defence of persons or property, while not applicable in this specific instance to excuse the conduct, could be considered in a broader sense when assessing the circumstances of an offence.
The appeal was allowed. The global sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant was quashed and replaced with a global sentence of four years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon existing sentences. The appellant was made eligible to apply for parole after serving three years of this new sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The global sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant on 4 August 2011 is quashed and in its place it is ordered that she serve a global sentence of four years' imprisonment cumulative upon the sentences that she was serving, and it is ordered that she be eligible to apply for parole after serving three years of the sentence of four years' imprisonment.
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.