Legal Research
Cases
R v Thompson

R v Thompson

Case [2025] NSWCCA 133 27 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
Hearing dates: 08 August 2025
Date of orders: 27 August 2025
Decision date: 27 August 2025
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Huggett J at [56];
Rigg J at [57].
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sentencing — Crown appeal against sentence — Manifest inadequacy — Domestic violence — Where offender convicted of murder — Sentence of imprisonment of 22 years and
6 months, with a non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months following a 10% discount applied for guilty plea — Where offender’s moral culpability diminished by mental health issues and significant deprivation in childhood — Reference to comparable cases — Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 6 Div 2
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 1982 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 17
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 10A, 25D(2)(b)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5D(1)

Cases Cited:
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 303
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
Elwood v R [2023] NSWCCA 200
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
KT v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571
McFarland v R [2021] NSWCCA 79
McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12; (2021) 287 A Crim R 542
Merkel v R [2019] NSWCCA 212
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 86
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
R v Ahmed (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 105
R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
R v Dempsey [2023] NSWSC 205
R v Devine (Supreme Court of Tasmania, 5 July 1993, unreported)
R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436; (2001) 125 A Crim R 551
R v Hachem [2023] NSWSC 535
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v He [2024] NSWSC 417
R v Homann [2018] NSWSC 757
R v Hossain [2023] NSWSC 1621
R v Knight [2023] NSWSC 321
R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
R v Moodie [2020] NSWCCA 160; (2020) 284 A Crim R 87
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; (1982) 5 A Crim R 394
R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
R…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 133
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in the case of R v Thompson faced a criminal appeal from the Crown against the sentence imposed by the lower court. Thompson was convicted of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years and six months, with a non-parole period of 15 years and six months. The Crown argued that the sentence was inadequate, given the gravity of the crime. The mitigating factors considered by the lower court included the defendant’s mental health issues and significant deprivation during childhood, which the Crown contended did not sufficiently justify the leniency of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the mitigating factors were appropriately considered. The Crown argued that the lower court had failed to adequately weigh the severity of the offence against the mitigating circumstances. The defence, on the other hand, maintained that the sentence reflected a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including the defendant’s mental health and background.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing for murder, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence, the protection of society, and the need for retribution. It also examined comparable cases to determine if Thompson's sentence was commensurate with similar offences. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court had properly balanced the mitigating factors against the seriousness of the crime and found no basis to intervene on the grounds of manifest inadequacy. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence.

Orders