R v Adam John Thompson - [2011] NSWSC 1130

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Adam John THOMPSON [2011] NSWSC 1130
Hearing dates: 16/09/2011
Decision date: 22 September 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years' imprisonment, commencing 18 May 2010 and concluding 17 May 2024, with a balance of term of a further 6 years' imprisonment, concluding 17 May 2030. First eligible for release on parole on 17 May 2024.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - felony murder - plea of guilty - no issue of principle - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Adam John Thompson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:

P Barnett SC (Crown)
W Brewer (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Gregory J Goold Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/123655

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Adam John Thompson (also known as Adam John Ellenor) has pleaded guilty to the murder of Jay Riley. The murder occurred in the course of a robbery, the circumstances of which it is necessary to describe.

The Offence

Mr Riley supplied Mr Thompson with illegal drugs (amphetamines) on a regular basis and Mr Thompson consumed amphetamines and sold amphetamines at least to the extent necessary to support his addiction.

Some time prior to 14 December 2009, Mr Thompson planned to rob Mr Riley. On 14 December 2009, Mr Riley left work early because he had tonsillitis. He attended a medical practice and was diagnosed. The medical practice was in Charlestown. He returned home, contacted his mother and then his girlfriend. After these two mobile phone calls he attended a pharmacy at Cardiff. He attended the pharmacy at or about 5.38pm on 14 December 2009. Mr Riley then returned some DVDs that he had borrowed and returned home. He was never seen alive again.

Mr Thompson lived with Ms Fennell in premises at Greta. Another co-accused, Mr Hamilton, lived in a shed in the backyard of the property.

On 14 December 2009, there were a number of telephone conversations between Mr Thompson and Mr Riley. At 6.23pm on 14 December 2009, there was a text message sent to Mr Riley's phone. His phone was then switched off at or about 6.30pm that day. Mr Thompson's mobile phone records disclose that Mr Riley was his only phone contact during 14 December 2009. The next use of Mr Thompson's phone was a text message sent by him to Mr Hamilton at 12.10am on 15 December 2009. Thereafter, Mr Thompson made a mobile phone call to Ms Fennell. That mobile phone call was at 4.23am on 15 December 2009.

Mr Riley's mobile phone was reactivated at 11.30am on 15 December 2009 using Mr Hamilton's SIM card. The mobile phone was later recovered from Mr Hamilton.

On the morning of 18 May 2010, police officers spoke with Ms Fennell, who had, since the date of the offence, separated from…

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 R v Adam John Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Adam John Thompson [2011] NSWSC 1130
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1130
Decision Date: 22 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Adam John Thompson, was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Thompson pleaded guilty to the charge of murder under the felony murder rule, which holds that if a death occurs during the commission of a felony, the perpetrator may be charged with murder. The nature of the dispute was the appropriate sentence to be imposed following the guilty plea. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for the defendant, considering the circumstances of the crime and the principles of sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Thompson, who pleaded guilty to murder. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the crime, the circumstances under which the death occurred, and the principles of sentencing in similar cases. The court was required to balance the severity of the offence with the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court found that there was no issue of principle in the case, as Thompson had entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder. In assessing the sentence, the court emphasised the gravity of the crime, noting that the death occurred during the commission of a serious felony. The court also considered the mitigating factors presented, including Thompson's cooperation with authorities and his remorse. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating circumstances.

The court's final order was that Adam John Thompson be sentenced to imprisonment, with specific details of the sentence provided in the court's written reasons. The court determined that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented, while also adhering to the principles of sentencing in similar cases.

Orders