R v Thompson - [2003] NSWCCA 219

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Thompson [2003] NSWCCA 219 revised - 22/08/2003

FILE NUMBER(S):
60146/03

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 04/08/2003

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Helen Anne Thompson - Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Simpson J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/3202

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL:
D Arnott - Crown
GR Heathcote - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
B Andrews - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence
charges of making and using a false instrument
Form 1 offences

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s300
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s33, s50

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60146/03
WOOD CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
ADAMS J
Monday 4 August 2003

REGINA v Helen Anne THOMPSON

Judgment

SIMPSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed upon her in the District Court on 21 October 2002, following her pleas of guilty to seven charges of making a false instrument, and seven of using a false instrument. In addition, the sentencing judge, pursuant to s33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, at the applicant’s request, took into account a further 30 charges of making, and 30 of using, false instruments. Pursuant to s300 of the Crimes Act 1900, each offence exposed the applicant to a maximum term of imprisonment for ten years. The applicant was sentenced, on each of the counts, to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months, to commence on 21 October 2002 (the date sentence was imposed). In respect of six counts she was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, with the same commencement date, to expire on 20 July 2003. In respect of the remaining six counts on the indictment, she was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for nine months, to commence on 21 July 2003, that is, at the expiration of the previously imposed fixed term. In reality, both groups of fixed term sentences are entirely subsumed within the three year sentence, and in the non-parole period specified in relation to those sentences. Pursuant to s50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the sentencing judge directed that the applicant be released at the expiration of the non-parole period. Accordingly, the overall sentence is of imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months at which point the applicant is entitled (not eligible) to release on parole.
In reaching the sentence he did, the sentencing judge said that but for the early plea of guilty, he would have imposed an overall sentence of four years, but reduced this to three years, by reason of the plea. A simple mathematical calculation indicates that this was a twenty-five per cent reduction, and I would take this to be the maximum reduction available in accordance with the decision of this Court…

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 [2003] NSWCCA 219
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date: 4 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under consideration is an application by the respondent, Thompson, for leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence. The appellant was convicted of two counts of making and using a false instrument, classified as Form 1 offences. The court of first instance sentenced Thompson to imprisonment, a decision which he now seeks to challenge on the basis of its severity. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was excessive and, if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on Thompson for his convictions under the relevant legislation was manifestly excessive. The Court needed to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as any relevant sentencing principles. This involved a detailed examination of the severity of the sentence in relation to the crimes committed, taking into account the specific facts and context of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the Court observed that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was at the higher end of the sentencing range for these types of offences. The Court considered the gravity of the offences, which involved the use of a false instrument with the intent to defraud, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Despite the seriousness of the crimes, the Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court noted that the trial judge had carefully considered the principles of sentencing and had imposed a sentence that was within the acceptable range for such offences. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, upholding the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the Court beyond the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

Orders