Two-year jail sentence for North Hobart jewellery thief deemed ‘heavy, though not too harsh’

“It’s not me, it’s the woman out the door.” A woman who stole thousands of dollars worth of jewellery from a popular North Hobart shop has fought to have her jail term reduced.

Shine Retail Therapy, in North Hobart, closed down after a woman stole more than $3000 worth of jewellery and bit the shop owner when confronted.

A woman given a “heavy” sentence of two years’ jail for stealing from a North Hobart ladies boutique, biting the shop owner when confronted, has failed to prove her punishment was manifestly excessive.

The store, Shine Retail Therapy, has since closed down.

Beverley Anne Banfield, 40, has a long history of stealing offences, including an occasion where she stabbed a security guard with a syringe when he tried to stop her taking items from a shop.

Banfield has been described as having a “very unfortunate background”, with her childhood marred by exposure to “extreme violence”.

In a newly-published judgment, a trio of judges on the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Banfield’s appeal – saying her sentence was “heavy, though not too harsh” and didn’t meet the thresholds necessary to prove manifest excess.

While sentencing her in May 2022, Acting Justice David Porter said the shop owner was alone behind the counter in February 2020 when Banfield robbed the North Hobart store by taking jewellery from a cabinet.

When the shop owner confronted Banfield, she at first said “it’s not me, it’s the woman out the door”.

As Banfield refused to return the jewellery, she bit the shop owner’s hand, punched her face and upper arm, and pushed her to the ground, causing the woman to hit her head.

Banfield fled with about $3350 worth of jewellery – but left behind a pair of her sunglasses, which police used to match her DNA.

She was jailed for two years, with a non-parole period of 14 months – with the shop owner said to be left “traumatised” and ultimately closing down the shop.

None of the jewellery was recovered.

In the appeal, Banfield’s lawyer argued her sentence “ignored her background of profound childhood deprivation”, ignored her attempts to address her longstanding drug addiction, and was “crushing” upon her, as she was already serving a 13-month sentence for an unrelated crime.

But Justice Stephen Estcourt said he was unable to rule that the sentencing judge’s sentence was “unreasonable or plainly unjust”.

He said while it was “perhaps at the upper end” of the range of sentences, it was within a proper exercise of the judge’s sentencing discretion.

“It is well understood that judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal have no remit to effect minor adjustments to a sentence on the basis of individual or idiosyncratic viewpoints,” Justice Estcourt said.

Follow @ambervwilson