DPP v Thompson

[2007] VSC 34

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1488 of 2006

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

LLOYD RONALD THOMPSON

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5-8, 11-15 December 2006 and 8 February 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 February 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Thompson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 34

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Intentionally causing serious injury – Stabbing of fellow resident of boarding house in the chest – Sentence of 7 years – Non-parole period of 5 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr R. Barry (Trial) and Mr B. Kayser (Plea)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Higham	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

1. Lloyd Thompson, you have been found guilty by a jury of intentionally causing serious injury to Matthew Wilson on 5 September 2005.  The same jury found you not guilty of attempting to murder Matthew Wilson. 

1. You came to know Matthew Wilson as a fellow resident of a boarding house at 61-63 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn.  You moved there in early August 2005, shortly after you were  released from prison. His bungalow was next to yours.  Like you, he was a chronic alcoholic.  You formed a dislike of him for reasons that included his choosing to drink alcohol in front of his young children.  You should have kept your dislike to yourself.  You should have kept your distance from Matthew Wilson, while you were obliged to live so close to him.

1. On 5 September 2005, you and he and other residents of the boarding house were talking in the room of a resident.  You chose to criticise Matthew Wilson for being a bad father.  There was an exchange of words.  You hit him to the face.  He chose not to retaliate.  He left the room, saying that he was going to call the police.  He went to the room of another resident.  There, he did telephone the police.  He was returning to his bungalow, as you came by.  There was a further exchange of insulting words between you and him.  You then entered his bungalow, despite his telling you not to come in.  Inside his bungalow, you picked up a knife that was on a shelf.  You then attacked him.  You forced him onto his bed.  Again and again, you hit and stabbed him or at him.  The jury did not find that you had the intention to kill Mathew Wilson, as distinct from the intention to cause him serious injury.  Given the size of the knife and the control that you exercised, you could easily have killed him, if that had been your intention.  Instead, you inflicted with the knife some very serious injuries.  Those injuries included a stab wound to the chest which had near-fatal consequences.  You inflicted other injuries to his head.

1. Shortly after that, you ceased your attack, and discarded the knife.  You then promptly telephoned for an ambulance.  Making that call might have been seen to be contra-indicative of an intention to kill.  Before any help came, you threatened Matthew Wilson with adverse consequences if he told the truth as to your attack on him. He bowed to your threats initially, and said that he had had an accident, falling on his knife.  That was the story that you chose to tell others including the police.  Your admitted lies to the police would have made it easier for the jury to reject your claims in this court that you had never taken up the knife and had only acted in self defence.  

1. The crime of intentionally causing serious injury is a serious crime.  This is a serious example of the crime.  The stabbing to the chest was close to the heart.  In taking up and using a knife of the size that you used, you had to know that the risk of death that you took was considerable.

1. I have read the victim impact statement of Matthew Wilson.  He has made many points that accord with the evidence at the trial that he and others gave.  He clearly suffered very serious physical injuries to his chest, head, eye and finger.  His injuries have left ongoing physical problems. His attempts to overcome his alcoholism have been set back.  Not surprisingly, there have been significant adverse psychological consequences for him.  They include that he is depressed, has been suicidal, suffers nightmares and has become hyper-vigilant.

1. I have information as to your background from the report of Jeffrey Cummins.  That was amplified by Mr Higham on the hearing of the plea.  You were born in South Australia in January 1953.  You are now 54 years of age. Your mother and sister remain supportive of you.  Your father was an alcoholic. He set the wrong kind of example.  After he died, your mother’s later partners seem to have set no better example.

1. Your record of appearances before the court is a troubling one.  It suggests that you have little respect for the law.  You have over 70 convictions from over twenty court appearances since 1968 when, at the age of 15, you were convicted of arson.  Your offences include dishonesty, driving, firearm and drug offences.  There are crimes of violence.  Until this incident, they were more in the nature of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty.  They did not lead to any long term of imprisonment, as this crime must.

1. There have been periods when you have relatively conformed. During those times, you assumed the roles of  husband, and of being father to your three children, and you ran businesses. Your wife remains supportive of you.  You have long had a major problem with alcohol.  Like your victim on this occasion, Matthew Wilson, you are a chronic alcoholic.  Alcohol has blighted your life and will continue to do so, unless you become a total abstainer.  There have been other factors contributing to your miseries, particularly since 1994.  You then suffered a serious fall at work.  The injuries then sustained necessitated many operations, and caused periods of prolonged pain.  You then became addicted to the medication which you had to take for the pain.  You have had to take anti-depressants.  You have had to take medication for a stomach ulcer. Your miseries were added to when you learned in 2001 of the rape of your daughter.  Your court appearances since 1999 are for offences of a more serious nature than those in the twenty years before. 

1. There are some, but not many mitigating considerations.  You have some supports in the community.  You have done courses in prison while on remand.  Mr Higham has assured me that you are remorseful for the harm caused to Mathew Wilson. Given other indicators to the contrary, scepticism as to the genuineness of any remorse is warranted.

1. I have signed an order for the retention of the forensic sample, there being no objection to my doing so.  I declare a period of 538 days by way of pre-sentence detention.  I direct that that be entered in the court records. I impose a sentence of 7 years.  I fix a non-parole period of 5 years.