R v Thompson - [2019] QCA 46

[2019] QCA 46

COURT OF APPEAL

GOTTERSON JA
BODDICE J
BROWN J

CA No 206 of 2018
DC No 148 of 2018

THE QUEEN

THOMPSON, George Vincent Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2019

JUDGMENT

BROWN J: The applicant was sentenced on 6 August 2018 in the District Court at Townsville in respect of six counts, namely, two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, two counts of common assault, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and one count of wounding, all of which were domestic violence offences. The sentencing judge determined that the appropriate penalty was three years’ imprisonment for the applicant’s overall criminality, which was imposed in relation to the most serious offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. His Honour provided for a parole release date of 9 September 2018.

The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against the sentence on 8 August 2018 on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. To date, the applicant has not provided an outline of argument, as required by Practice Direction 3 of 2013, nor provided any updated contact details to the Court of Appeal Registry.

Several attempts have been made by the Court of Appeal Registry to contact the applicant in relation to the appeal. On 13 August 2018, the Registry sent correspondence by post to the applicant at the Townsville Correctional Centre, advising the applicant of the importance of him informing the Registry of any change to his address for service.

On 27 November 2018, upon the applicant’s sentence application being listed for hearing, the Registry noted the applicant was no longer in custody and was presently reporting to the Probation and Parole Office at Townsville. No updated contact details had been provided to the Registry.

Contact was made with the applicant’s case manager, who advised that their office would assist and provide any correspondence to the applicant when he next reported to them. The Registry then emailed correspondence to the applicant, care of the Townsville Probation and Parole Office, advising the applicant that his sentence application was listed for hearing on 19 March 2019 and that his written outline of argument was to be lodged by 19 February 2019.

On 14 January 2019, the Registry sent correspondence to the applicant’s last known postal address, advising the applicant of the listing of his application and enclosing a copy of his appeal record book. On 25 February 2019, the Deputy Registrar contacted the Townsville Probation and Parole Office. The applicant’s case manager confirmed to the Deputy Registrar that the applicant had been provided with the correspondence dated 27 November 2018 on 8 February 2019.

The Deputy Registrar sent further correspondence to the applicant, care of the Townsville Probation and Parole Office, confirming that the matter remained listed for hearing on 19 March 2019 and that his outline of argument was overdue as at 19 February 2019. The Deputy Registrar further advised the applicant to lodge his outline of argument as a matter…

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 [2019] QCA 46
Case: [2019] QCA 46
Decision Date: 19 MARCH 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Thompson, the applicant, George Vincent Thompson, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court at Townsville. Thompson was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for multiple domestic violence offences, including assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. The sentencing judge set a parole release date of 9 September 2018. Thompson filed an application for leave to appeal against the sentence on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Gotterson JA, Boddice J, and Brown JCA in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if not, whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's failure to comply with procedural requirements. The Court noted that Thompson had not provided an outline of argument or updated contact details as required by Practice Direction 3 of 2013. Despite several attempts by the Court of Appeal Registry to contact Thompson, he had failed to take any steps to prosecute the application for leave to appeal. The Court examined the sentence imposed by the District Court and found no error in the decision, as the sentencing judge had considered the relevant factors and the sentence was within the sentencing range.

The Court concluded that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements for prosecuting the appeal and had not demonstrated any apparent merit in the application for leave. Given the delay and the applicant's failure to take any steps to prosecute the appeal, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal for want of prosecution. Gotterson JA, Boddice J, and Brown JCA all agreed with the decision.

The final order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders