Legal Research
Cases
Young v Wilson

Young v Wilson

Case [2015] TASSC 16 28 April 2015

Type to search within this case.

[2015] TASSC 16

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Young v Wilson [2015] TASSC 16

PARTIES:  YOUNG, Callum Angus
  v
  WILSON, Annette Helen (Constable)
  LYONS, Jason Shaun

FILE NO:  964/2014
DELIVERED ON:  28 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  2 and 24 February, 27 April 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentencing orders – Whether unjust to activate suspended sentences – Whether other sentences imposed individually or in their combined effect manifestly excessive – Where no orders made allowing eligibility for parole – Consideration of totality principle

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), ss 17, 27.
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, applied.
Devine v The Queen [2003] TASSC 52; R v Nolan [2009] QCA 129; Kaya v The Queen [2014] VSCA 55; Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris [2013] TASCCA 5, considered.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  In person
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 16
Number of paragraphs: 84

Serial No 16/2015
File No 964/2014

CALLUM ANGUS YOUNG v CONSTABLE ANNETTE HELEN WILSON
and JASON SHAUN LYONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

28 April 2015

Callum Angus Young has filed a notice to review asserting error in the sentencing orders of Magistrate M Bartlett, imposed on 23 October 2014.
The applicant pleaded guilty to offences of use a carriage service to harass another person, breaches of a Police Family Violence Order, and common assault. The learned magistrate imposed a global sentence of eight months' imprisonment. The magistrate also dealt with the applicant in relation to previously imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment, conditional on periods of not offending, which had been breached by the new offences just mentioned. Pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1997, s 27, the learned magistrate ordered the applicant to serve two suspended periods of imprisonment and, with respect to a third suspended term of imprisonment of 18 months, she substituted a period of 12 months' imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment were cumulative to each other, and amounted to 26 months' imprisonment. No orders were made providing eligibility for parole.
The applicant applies to review these sentencing orders on the basis that they were manifestly excessive and, further, that the learned magistrate erred in finding that it was not unjust to activate the terms of imprisonment.

The new offences

The details of the new offences that attracted the term of eight months' imprisonment are as follows. There was an offence of use a carriage service to harass another person contrary to s 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), six charges of breaching a Police Family Violence Order contrary to s 35(1) of the Family Violence Act 2004, and one offence of common assault contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s 35(1). The facts of the offence contrary to the Criminal Code (Cth)…

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 Young v Wilson

Details

AGLC: Young v Wilson [2015] TASSC 16
Case: [2015] TASSC 16
Decision Date: 28 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Young v Wilson was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, where the defendant, Young, appealed the sentencing orders imposed by the lower court. Young had been convicted of several criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment, with some sentences suspended. The central issue in the appeal was whether the activation of the suspended sentences and the overall sentencing were just and appropriate. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the activation of the suspended sentences was unjust and if the combined effect of the sentences was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court considered whether the lack of orders allowing eligibility for parole was a factor in the appeal.

The legal issues that the court needed to address involved the principles of sentencing, particularly the principle of totality which requires that the totality of a sentence should not be excessive. The court had to assess whether the sentences imposed, when taken together, were disproportionately severe given the nature of the offences committed. The court also had to consider whether the failure to include orders for parole eligibility was a critical factor that warranted a review of the sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the circumstances of the offences, the nature of the sentences imposed, and the overall impact on the defendant. The court concluded that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive when considered in the context of the crimes committed. The court found that the sentences did not breach the principle of totality and were justified in the circumstances. The lack of parole eligibility orders was also not deemed a significant factor warranting a review of the sentences. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentencing orders were upheld.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentencing orders were confirmed. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the sentences and the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing. The decision underscored that while the sentences were stringent, they were deemed appropriate in light of the crimes committed and the principles of justice and fairness.

Orders