Legal Research
Cases
R v Thompson

R v Thompson

Case [2005] NSWCCA 340 29 September 2005

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
156 A Crim R 467

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION:
REGINA v THOMPSON [2005] NSWCCA 340
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

29 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Mason P at 1; Barr J at 48; Johnson J at 49

DECISION:
Appeal upheld. Sentence reduced

CATCHWORDS:
SENTENCING - deemed supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug - s25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 - plea of guilty - Form 1 offences - supply of a single tablet of ecstasy - having possession of an amount reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained - standard non-parole period - s21A, s54B(2) Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 - aggravating factors - mitigating factors - sentencing principles in Way - middle of the range of objective seriousness - special circumstances - accumulated assets. (ND)

LEGISLATION CITED:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990

CASES CITED:
Markarian v R (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v GJ Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319
R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 140
R v Markarian [2003] NSWCCA 8
R v Mendez [2005] NSWCCA 246
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thompson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES:
REGINA
Lionel THOMPSON

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2698

COUNSEL:
Applicant: P Byrne SC/ G Bashir
Respondent: P Ingram

SOLICITORS:
Applicant: Michael Croke & Co
Respondent: S Kavanagh, Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/0613

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Nield DCJ

CCA 2004/2698

MASON P
BARR J
JOHNSON J
Thursday 29 September 2005

REGINA v Lionel THOMPSON

Judgment

1 MASON P: On 17 June 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge of deemed supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug namely methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (also known as MDMA or ecstasy). The applicant was committed to the District Court for sentence. There he repeated his plea of guilty and asked the court to take account of two further charges on a Form 1 document.

2 The offence charged involved supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug, contrary to s25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 (the DMT Act) for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for life and/or a fine of $550,000 (s33(1)(a), (3)(a)).

3 The Form 1 offences also occurred on 17 April 2003 and were very much part and parcel of the criminality caught up in the main charge. They were the supply of a single tablet of ecstasy and the offence of having possession of $10,650 that was reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully obtained.

4 Because the applicant was charged after…

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 [2005] NSWCCA 340
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 340
Decision Date: 29 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Thompson, the appellant faced sentencing following a plea of guilty to charges including the deemed supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986, as well as possession of a single tablet of ecstasy and possession of an amount reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia, where the appellant's sentencing was under review. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the legal principles governing such offences, including the application of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 and the case law on the sentencing of drug-related offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the standard non-parole period for the deemed supply offence, the consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles as outlined in Way v R. The court needed to assess the objective seriousness of the offences, the appellant's role in the criminal activity, and any special circumstances that might influence the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's accumulated assets as part of the sentencing process.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law. The court found the deemed supply offence to be of significant objective seriousness, placing it in the middle range as per the criteria established in Way. The court took into account various aggravating factors, such as the large quantity of drugs involved, and mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty plea and the absence of a criminal history. The court also considered the appellant's accumulated assets, which were determined to be the result of unlawful activities. After weighing all these factors, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's role, and the need to deter similar criminal conduct.

The court's final orders included a sentence for the deemed supply offence that included a custodial term, with a non-parole period calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions. The sentence also addressed the lesser charges, reflecting the totality of the appellant's offending and ensuring that justice was served in a manner consistent with the principles of sentencing in Australia.

Orders