R v. Thompson - [2008] QCA 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thompson [2008] QCA 256

PARTIES:

R
v
THOMPSON, Craig Richard
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 128 of 2008
SC No 436 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2008

JUDGES:

Keane JA, Mackenzie AJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of carrying on the business of trafficking in methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years and three months – where the applicant’s two co-offenders received lesser sentences of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years, and four years imprisonment suspended after 15 months for five years – where the learned sentencing judge noted the different circumstances of each offender – whether the applicant’s sentence was manifestly excessive – whether there was an unjustifiable lack of parity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offenders

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited

R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited
R v Elizalde[2006] QCA 330, cited
R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70, cited
R v Zeremes& Zeremes[2003] QCA 255, cited

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Mackenzie AJA. I agree with those reasons and the order proposed by his Honour.

MACKENZIE AJA
: The applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of an offence of carrying on the business of trafficking in methylamphetamine. The period alleged in the indictment is about seven and a half months, but in submissions it was said to be actually about six months. He was sentenced to

seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years and three months.

The appeal is confined to the argument that the applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance when his sentence is compared to those of his co-offenders. It is submitted that a sentence of six years imprisonment should have been imposed. To reflect the plea of guilty, although admittedly very late, it would be within the court’s discretion to make a recommendation for parole after two and a half years. Having regard to the nature of the issue in this application, it is necessary to…

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 [2008] QCA 256
Case: [2008] QCA 256
Decision Date: 29 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v. Thompson involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to carrying on the business of trafficking in methylamphetamine. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or if there was an unjustifiable lack of parity between the applicant’s sentence and those of his co-offenders. The applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years and three months, whereas his co-offenders received lesser sentences: five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years, and four years imprisonment suspended after 15 months for five years.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of each offender as noted by the trial judge. It was noted that the trial judge had carefully considered the differences in the roles and culpability of each offender. The applicant argued that his sentence was disproportionately harsher compared to his co-offenders, despite their lesser roles in the offence. The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the appropriate sentence for the applicant.

After considering the arguments and the sentencing principles, the court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court found that there was no manifest excess in the sentence and no unjustifiable lack of parity. The differing roles and levels of involvement of the offenders justified the variance in the sentences imposed. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 [2008] QCA 256
PARTIES:	R v THOMPSON, Craig Richard (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 128 of 2008 SC No 436 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 August 2008
JUDGES:	Keane JA, Mackenzie AJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of carrying on the business of trafficking in methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years and three months – where the applicant’s two co-offenders received lesser sentences of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years, and four years imprisonment suspended after 15 months for five years – where the learned sentencing judge noted the different circumstances of each offender – whether the applicant’s sentence was manifestly excessive – whether there was an unjustifiable lack of parity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offenders Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited R v Elizalde[2006] QCA 330, cited R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70, cited R v Zeremes& Zeremes[2003] QCA 255, cited
COUNSEL:	P E Smith for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent