Tasmania’s former Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested convicted criminals may be “discouraged” from appealing their sentences due to a supposedly low rate of allowed appeals in the state.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Tim Ellis, now a practicing barrister, is acting for a Launceston man, Andrew Neville Hodgetts, who was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail for computer-related fraud in 2017.
Hodgetts is appealing against his sentence on account of it supposedly being manifestly excessive.
Over the course of four years, the appellant created false documents, forged signatures and deposited funds into his personal accounts while working at Launceston Motor Group.
The total personal benefit to Hodgetts amounted to roughly $700,000.
He was given a non-parole period of three years.
Mr Ellis said there was an “unjustified disparity” between his client’s non-parole period and the non-parole periods imposed in comparable fraud cases.
“Surely the appellant can harbour a justified sense of grievance,” he said.
Mr Ellis also said the sentencing judge, Justice Robert Pearce, had erred by not providing an explicit reason for imposing the non-parole period he did on Hodgetts.
Mr Ellis suggested the “structure” of Tasmania’s Court of Criminal Appeal “invites apprehension” from convicted criminals seeking to appeal their sentences.
He cited a judgment Chief Justice Alan Blow had made in an earlier appeal against a sentence for computer-related fraud, an appeal which was allowed.
Chief Justice Blow told Mr Ellis the circumstances in the earlier case were different.
Mr Ellis said his submissions were not designed to “shame” the court.
Crown prosecutor Jackie Hartnett said Hodgetts’ non-parole period was appropriate given “the lack of mitigating factors”.
“His moral culpability was high and there was a significant need for general deterrence,” Ms Hartnett said of Hodgetts’ sentence.
The court reserved its decision.
