Legal Research
Cases
Watson v Woodgate

Watson v Woodgate

Case [2025] TASSC 26 13 May 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 26

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Watson v Woodgate [2025] TASSC 26
PARTIES:	WATSON, Christina Vernessa
v
WOODGATE, Hamish
FILE NO:	3329/2024
DELIVERED ON:	13 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Alcohol and drug related offences – Tasmania – Driving with prescribed illicit drug in blood and other offences – Sentence and penalty.

Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, s 6A(1)

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1159]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: F McCracken
Respondent: A Gillard

Solicitors:

Applicant: Fran McCracken
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 26
Number of paragraphs:	18

Serial No 26/2025 File No 3329/2024

CHRISTINA VERNESSA WATSON v SERGEANT HAMISH WOODGATE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
13 May 2025

1             This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate, Mr S Brown. The applicant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in her oral fluid contrary to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, s 6A(1), and driving whilst not the holder of a driver licence contrary to the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, s 8. She was sentenced on 11 December 2024. A single sentence was imposed for both counts, a term of imprisonment of eight weeks and disqualification from driving for nine months. The respondent is a police officer who made the relevant complaint.
2             The sole ground of the motion to review is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. No complaint is made about the order for disqualification. The motion is directed at the learned magistrate's decision to impose a term of imprisonment which was to be immediately served. On 12 December 2024, the day after the sentence was imposed, the applicant was granted a stay of the sentence of imprisonment and admitted to bail until the determination of the motion.
3             To succeed on a ground that a sentence is manifestly excessive it is not enough to establish that the sentence may be regarded by some as too harsh. An appeal court may not substitute its own opinion for that of the magistrate merely because it may have exercised the sentencing discretion differently: Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29, 195 CLR 665 at [15]. This Court must be persuaded of error of the second type referred to in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505, that is, that the sentence imposed by the sentencing court is, on the facts, unreasonable or plainly unjust, such that the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure to properly exercise the sentencing discretion. Manifest excess or inadequacy must be plainly apparent. An applicant must show that the sentence is so obviously excessive that it is outside the proper limits of the broad sentencing discretion of a magistrate: Allen v Kerr [2009] TASSC 10, 19 Tas…

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 Watson v Woodgate

Details

AGLC: Watson v Woodgate [2025] TASSC 26
Case: [2025] TASSC 26
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watson was convicted of several driving-related offences, including driving with a prescribed illicit drug in his blood. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court of Tasmania. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas). The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was within the bounds of what could be considered a just and appropriate punishment for the offences committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The Court held that the Magistrate had properly considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the gravity of the offences. The Court noted that the offences involved driving under the influence of a prescribed illicit drug, which posed a significant risk to public safety. The Court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter Watson and others from engaging in similar conduct. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal did not alter the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. Watson's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders