R v Thompson - [2024] QCA 233

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thompson [2024] QCA 233

PARTIES:

R
v
THOMPSON, Te-Awa Mauratana
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 14 of 2024
SC No 1212 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 31 May 2023 (Cooper J)

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 November 2024

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Doyle AJA

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was charged, along with four co-offenders, with murder; stealing; burglary by breaking, with violence, while armed, in company, with property damage; assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, in company; and arson – where the Crown accepted the applicant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter in satisfaction of the murder change – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, and lesser concurrent terms for the other offences – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant submits that: (1) the learned judge erred in imposing a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter charge which reflected all the offending, rather than imposing a lower sentence for manslaughter and a separate cumulative sentence on the charge of arson; and (2) that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether there is merit in either proposed ground of appeal – whether an extension of time should be granted in the circumstances

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2), s 184(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a)

R v Geissler[2019] QCA 63, considered

COUNSEL:

S C Holt KC for the applicant
D Nardone, with R A Swanwick, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Cullen Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOWSKILL CJ: In the early hours of the morning on 14 October 2019, the applicant, who was armed with a loaded sawn off shotgun and with four other men, broke into a home. A man called M, his 13 year old daughter and a housemate were there, and each was confronted by one of the offenders. The applicant became involved in a struggle with M, as a result of which the shotgun discharged, causing fatal injuries to M. The Crown considered it could not contradict that the firearm discharged unintentionally and so accepted the applicant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter in satisfaction of the charge of murder brought against him. On 31 May 2023, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the unlawful killing of M. Lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment were imposed on the applicant for other offences, connected with the incident. The applicant applies for an extension of time within which to make an…

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 [2024] QCA 233
Case: [2024] QCA 233
Decision Date: 22 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson involved the applicant, who was charged alongside four co-offenders with multiple serious offences, including murder, stealing, burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm, and arson. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter, and the Crown accepted this plea in lieu of the murder charge. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with concurrent lesser terms for the other offences. The applicant now sought an extension of the time within which to apply for leave to appeal against the sentence. The primary grounds for the appeal were that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, which reflected all the offending, rather than imposing a lower sentence for manslaughter and a separate cumulative sentence on the arson charge. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether there was merit in the proposed grounds of appeal and whether an extension of time should be granted under the circumstances. The court carefully considered the arguments presented by the applicant and the relevant legal principles concerning sentencing and the imposition of concurrent sentences. The court also assessed whether the applicant's claims of error and excessiveness in sentencing were valid and warranted an extension of time to appeal. The court examined the sentencing judge's reasoning and the proportionality of the sentence imposed in light of the totality of the offending and the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal did not demonstrate sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the totality of the offending and imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant's arguments did not provide a compelling basis for an extension of time to appeal. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused.

The court's decision was final, and the applicant's application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The applicant's sentence, as determined by the sentencing judge, remained in effect, and no further appeal could be lodged outside the prescribed time limits.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Thompson [2024] QCA 233
PARTIES:	R v THOMPSON, Te-Awa Mauratana (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 14 of 2024 SC No 1212 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 31 May 2023 (Cooper J)
DELIVERED ON:	22 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 November 2024
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Doyle AJA
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was charged, along with four co-offenders, with murder; stealing; burglary by breaking, with violence, while armed, in company, with property damage; assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, in company; and arson – where the Crown accepted the applicant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter in satisfaction of the murder change – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, and lesser concurrent terms for the other offences – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant submits that: (1) the learned judge erred in imposing a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter charge which reflected all the offending, rather than imposing a lower sentence for manslaughter and a separate cumulative sentence on the charge of arson; and (2) that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether there is merit in either proposed ground of appeal – whether an extension of time should be granted in the circumstances Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2), s 184(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a) R v Geissler[2019] QCA 63, considered
COUNSEL:	S C Holt KC for the applicant D Nardone, with R A Swanwick, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Cullen Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent