R v Thompson

In the matter of R v Thompson, the appellant challenged the sentence imposed on him after pleading guilty to grooming a child with intent to procure. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a non-custodial sentence. The appellant contended that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the impact of extra-curial punishment and other personal factors in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist. The primary judge had only specifically addressed the factor of extra-curial punishment and certain aspects arising from a psychologist's report, but did not articulate why exceptional circumstances did not exist in the wider circumstances of the case. The appeal court needed to consider whether the primary judge's failure to consider other relevant factors constituted an error in finding that there were no exceptional circumstances.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases regarding the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” as outlined in section 9(4)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act. The court acknowledged that there is no clear prescription of what circumstances are capable of being regarded as exceptional, and that consideration must be given not only to the unusualness of the individual factors but to their weight and those factors which, taken alone, may not be out of the ordinary, may in combination constitute an exceptional case. The court also noted that a finding that exceptional circumstances exist is one made in the exercise of a discretion and one where reasonable minds may differ. In this case, the court found that the primary judge had erred in not adequately considering the impact of extra-curial punishment and other personal factors in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist. The court held that the primary judge's failure to consider these factors constituted an error in finding that there were no exceptional circumstances.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed and the sentence imposed on the appellant was set aside. The court sentenced the appellant to a period of imprisonment of 105 days, with the 105 days between 9 November 2018 and the date of the orders declared as time served under that sentence. The appellant was to be released under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services Officer for a period of one year, and must comply with the requirements set out in section 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The appellant was required to report by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 February 2019, to an authorised Corrective Services Officer at Level 3, 27 Cornmeal Parade, Maroochydore, 4558.