R v Thompson - [2021] QCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thompson [2021] QCA 29

PARTIES:

R
v
THOMPSON, Robert Francis John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 46 of 2020
DC No 54 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 5 February 2020 (Reid DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2020

JUDGES:

Philippides and Mullins JJA and Williams J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts, including 13 offences of a sexual nature and one offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where the sentence imposed on count 2 was twelve years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the applicant submits that the sentence imposed on count 2 is manifestly excessive because it is plainly unjust and unreasonable in all the circumstances and it does not adequately reflect the applicant’s pleas of guilty – whether the sentence imposed on count 2 is manifestly excessive

R v BBY[2011] QCA 69, considered
R v L[2002] QCA 377, considered
R v Quinn[2018] QCA 144, considered
R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, considered
R v ZA; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 249, considered

COUNSEL:

G Elmore for the applicant
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree for the reasons stated by Williams J that the application for leave to appeal should be refused.
MULLINS JA: I rely on [27] to [39] of Williams J’s reasons and will not repeat their content in setting out my reasons for proposing to grant the application and allow the appeal by reducing the sentence for count 2 from 12 years’ imprisonment to 11 years’ imprisonment.
The applicant’s antecedents
In addition to what Williams J has set out at [36] and [37] of her Honour’s reasons, the following further information from Dr Palk’s report should be noted. Dr Palk recorded that the applicant discovered when he was in year 7 that he was adopted and his biological mother was of Aboriginal descent. He never went to high school, but went to work on a dairy farm where he was molested by the owner who made the applicant masturbate him, in order to keep his job. The applicant then worked at a service station where he said one of the male customers raped him when he was 17 years old. Eventually, the applicant worked in the mines driving heavy vehicles. From the age of 50 years, he worked as a bus driver for 14 years.
The applicant reported to Dr Palk that he was involved in two accidents as a bus driver in which the other…

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 [2021] QCA 29
Case: [2021] QCA 29
Decision Date: 2 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The sentence in question was twelve years imprisonment for the offence committed on count 2. The applicant argued that this sentence was manifestly excessive, asserting that it was plainly unjust and unreasonable in all the circumstances and did not adequately reflect his pleas of guilty. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on count 2 was indeed manifestly excessive.

The court considered the appropriate test for determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, which involves examining whether the sentence is plainly unjust and unreasonable in all the circumstances and whether it does not adequately reflect the defendant's pleas of guilty. The court reviewed the severity and nature of the offence, the defendant's plea of guilty, and other relevant factors. After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on count 2 was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and appropriately reflected the defendant's guilty plea.

Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's plea of guilty. The court held that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 [2021] QCA 29
PARTIES:	R v THOMPSON, Robert Francis John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 46 of 2020 DC No 54 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 5 February 2020 (Reid DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 November 2020
JUDGES:	Philippides and Mullins JJA and Williams J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts, including 13 offences of a sexual nature and one offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where the sentence imposed on count 2 was twelve years imprisonment for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the applicant submits that the sentence imposed on count 2 is manifestly excessive because it is plainly unjust and unreasonable in all the circumstances and it does not adequately reflect the applicant’s pleas of guilty – whether the sentence imposed on count 2 is manifestly excessive R v BBY[2011] QCA 69, considered R v L[2002] QCA 377, considered R v Quinn[2018] QCA 144, considered R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, considered R v ZA; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 249, considered
COUNSEL:	G Elmore for the applicant D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ashkan Tai Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent