Legal Research
Cases
Woodgate v Leahy

Woodgate v Leahy

Case [2025] TASSC 57 5 November 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 57

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Woodgate v Leahy [2025] TASSC 57
PARTIES:	WOODGATE, Hamish
v
LEAHY, Brandon Carlisle
FILE NO:	1288/2025
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	22 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, s 13
Visser v Smart [1998] TASSC 151 applied

Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Appeals by Crown – Principles applied by appellate court to Crown appeals – Residual discretion to dismiss appeal not exercised.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3527]

Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60 applied

Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers –Tasmania – Offences – Drive while disqualified.

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1062]

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, s 13

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: A B Gillard
Respondent: K P Toman

Solicitors:

Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Tasmania Legal Aid

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs:	17

Serial No 57/2025 File No 1288/2025

HAMISH WOODGATE v BRANDON CARLISLE LEAHY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
5 November 2025

1 This is a prosecution appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate, Ms S Cure. On 12 March 2025 the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of driving while disqualified. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one month, wholly suspended for nine months from the date of sentence, and disqualified from driving for one month cumulative to the period of disqualification he was already serving. The applicant is a police officer. The sole ground of the motion is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
2 Prosecution appeals against sentence are less readily allowed than defence appeals[1]. However in this case, the motion should be allowed. The sentence imposed by the learned magistrate disclosed clear error[2]. The sentence was so obviously inadequate that the sentencing discretion must have miscarried. It was plainly outside the proper limits of the wide discretion vested in the magistrate[3]. I am satisfied that I should not exercise the residual discretion to dismiss a prosecution appeal and I will re-sentence the respondent.

The circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the respondent

[1] The principles are summarised by Wood J in Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60 citing R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R

[2] Visser v Smart [1998] TASSC 151

[3] Allen v Kerr [2009] TASSC 10; (2009) 19 Tas R 132

3 The circumstances of the offence were that the respondent, on 9 March 2024, drove on Friend Street in Georgetown when he was disqualified from driving. He was subject to court orders which disqualified him from driving until, on my calculations, 9 May 2027, although the magistrate was told that the period of disqualification was between 27 October 2023 and 8 May 2026. He…

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 Woodgate v Leahy

Details

AGLC: Woodgate v Leahy [2025] TASSC 57
Case: [2025] TASSC 57
Decision Date: 5 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woodgate v Leahy involved the defendant, Woodgate, who was appealing against his sentence imposed by the lower court. The nature of the dispute was centred around the severity of the sentence handed down, which Woodgate contended was excessive. The matter was heard in the appellate court. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, warranting a review or alteration.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's background, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. It was imperative for the court to determine if the sentence deviated significantly from the norm for similar offences. In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles established in precedent cases, considering the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence committed. After a thorough analysis, the court found that the sentence did not meet the threshold for being deemed manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The court's reasoning hinged on the balance between the severity of the offence and the sentence imposed, ensuring that the punishment was proportionate and aligned with legal standards. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the original sentence, affirming that it was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing while allowing for some discretion within legal boundaries.

Orders