Webb v Biddle - [2014] TASSC 6

[2014] TASSC 6

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Webb v Biddle [2014] TASSC 6

PARTIES:  WEBB, Lauren Rebecca
  v
  BIDDLE, Shane Alan

WILSON, Annette Helen

FILE NO/S:  1095/2013
DELIVERED ON:  5 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Burnie
HEARING DATE:  3 February 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Whether sentence of imprisonment excessive in all the circumstances.

Justices Act1959 (Tas), s110.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  J Ker
             First and Second Respondent:     S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             First and Second Respondent:    Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 6
Number of paragraphs: 18

Serial No 6/2014
File No 1095/2013

LAUREN REBECCA WEBB v SHANE ALAN BIDDLE and
ANNETTE HELEN WILSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ESTCOURT J

5 February 2014

The background

On 21 October 2013 the applicant was sentenced by Magistrate Brett to a period of five months' imprisonment, the execution of which was wholly suspended for 18 months on conditions:
a     that the applicant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment;
b     that the applicant perform 63 hours of community service; and
c     that the applicant comply with the supervision of a probation officer.
The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of imprisonment globally on four complaints, one of which charged an offence of using an unregistered motor vehicle contrary to s27(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999.
Section 27(1)(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Act prescribes, in the case of a first offence, a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units.
No prior convictions were tendered to the learned magistrate and thus the applicant was to be sentenced as a first offender on that complaint.
In addition to the offence of using an unregistered motor vehicle, the global sentence was imposed in relation to the following charges:
a     four offences of aggravated burglary contrary to s245(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code;
b     one offence of burglary contrary to s244 of the Code;
c     five offences of stealing contrary to s234 of the Code;
d     one offence of receiving stolen property contrary to s258 of the Code; and
eone offence of making off without payment contrary to s38A(1) of the Police Offences Act 1935.

The plea in mitigation

The following matters were put to the learned magistrate on behalf of the applicant in mitigation of the applicant's offending:
"As far as the details of that offence are concerned, it was her intention initially to make payment for the fuel, however when the card was declined she accepts that she left and that there was no further attempt made to offer payment for the fuel.
As far as the registration of the vehicle was concerned, it was a situation where she had only recently purchased the vehicle. She was unaware that the registration had lapsed, and as your Honour has heard, it's not something that she has a prior…

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 Webb v Biddle

Details

AGLC: Webb v Biddle [2014] TASSC 6
Case: [2014] TASSC 6
Decision Date: 5 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Webb v Biddle involved the appellant, Webb, who was appealing against a sentence imposed by a Magistrates Court in Tasmania. The nature of the dispute was whether the sentence of imprisonment handed down by the court was excessive, given the circumstances of the case. Webb was convicted of a serious crime and subsequently received a custodial sentence. The appeal was lodged in the higher court, seeking a review of the sentence's appropriateness.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Webb was excessive in all the circumstances. The court had to consider whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the offender's personal circumstances, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court needed to determine if the sentence was within the bounds of what could be considered just and reasonable in the context of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the relevant legal principles guiding sentencing. The court noted the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation. However, the court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, background, and any mitigating factors. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not excessive in all the circumstances. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and took into account the relevant mitigating factors. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders