R v Thompson - [2001] NSWCCA 278

CITATION: R v Thompson [2001] NSWCCA 278

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60337/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
David George Thompson

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J at 1; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0140

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Luland DCJ

COUNSEL : H. Dhanji (Appellant)
G E Smith (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: D. J Humphreys (Appellant)
S. E. O'Connor (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Application of principle of totality - Offender aged 23 - not previously adequately treated and problem of being institutionalised.

CASES CITED:
R v Henry and Barber (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Itamua [2000] NSWCCA 502

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted;; 2. Dismiss the appeal against the sentences of fixed terms of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 8 February 2000 and expiring on 7 February 2002 in respect of each of the offences of break, enter and steal, the subject of counts 1 and 2.; 3. Allow the appeal against the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for armed robbery taking into account the offences on form 1 with a non-parole period of seven years. Sentence quashed.; 4. In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for eight years commencing on 8 February 2002, with a non-parole period of 5 years starting that day and ending on 7 February 2007.; 5. Direct that a copy of this judgment and the report of Ms J. Devlin of 5 April 2001 be sent to Corrective Services to enable that Department to attend to the treatment of the applicant.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60337/00

O'KEEFE J
SMART AJ

Thursday, 19 July 2001

REGINA v DAVID GEORGE THOMPSON

JUDGMENT

1   O'KEEFE J: I agree with Smart AJ

2   SMART AJ: David George Thompson seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court on 2 June 2000. As to counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, being two offences of break enter and steal, he was sentenced on each count to a concurrent fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years, commencing on 8 February 2000. On a charge of armed robbery, taking into account 8 offences of break enter and steal and 2 offences of break and enter with intent, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to commence on 8 February 2002, with a non-parole period of 7 years commencing that day. His total effective sentence was thus 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years.

3   Consequent upon his arrest for armed robbery the applicant was interviewed by the police as to a number of break, enter and steal occurences. During this interview the applicant made admissions of guilt of breaking, entering and stealing from the Dowe Street Café, Tamworth. He had been drinking at two hotels on the evening of 27 November 1999. He left the second hotel in the early hours of 28 November 1999 and walked to the Dowe Street Café.…

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 [2001] NSWCCA 278
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 278
Decision Date: 19 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Thompson involved the sentencing of a 23-year-old offender who had not been previously adequately treated for their criminal conduct and faced issues related to being institutionalised. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the principle of totality should be applied to mitigate the offender's sentence due to their young age and the circumstances surrounding their institutionalisation. The principle of totality is a sentencing consideration that ensures the cumulative effect of multiple sentences does not result in excessive punishment. The court had to determine whether this principle was applicable in this case and how it should influence the sentence.

The legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the principle of totality could be applied to reduce the offender's sentence. This principle is generally invoked to prevent an offender from being subjected to an unduly harsh cumulative sentence. The court considered the offender's age, their history of inadequate treatment, and their experience of being institutionalised. The court also had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the need for rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing. The central question was whether the principle of totality should be applied in a way that would result in a reduced sentence for the offender.

The court found that the principle of totality could be applied in this case to mitigate the offender's sentence. The judge recognised that the offender's age and history of inadequate treatment were significant factors that warranted consideration. The court also acknowledged the negative impact of institutionalisation on the offender's rehabilitation prospects. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that a reduced sentence was appropriate to ensure proportionality and to provide an opportunity for the offender to receive adequate treatment and rehabilitation. The court determined that the principle of totality should be applied to achieve a just outcome that balanced the needs of the community and the offender.

The final orders of the court were that the principle of totality would be applied to reduce the offender's sentence. The exact reduction was not specified in the text, but the court made it clear that the sentence would be adjusted to reflect the application of the principle. This decision highlighted the importance of considering the individual circumstances of an offender, particularly their age and treatment history, when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders