Legal Research
Cases
R v Thompson

R v Thompson

Case [1994] QCA 393 16 November 1994

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Cooperation with Authorities

Plea of Guilty

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 393

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 336 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. Thompson]

Before

Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. Derrington J.

T H E Q U E E N

STEVEN PAUL THOMPSON

(Applicant)

_________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. Derrington J.

_________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 16 November 1994

Judgment of the Court
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED BY VARYING SENTENCES IMPOSED BELOW. ALL 20-YEAR SENTENCES IMPOSED BELOW REDUCED TO 12 YEARS. RECOMMEND THAT, IN RELATION TO ALL 12-YEAR SENTENCES, APPLICANT BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE AFTER HAVING SERVED 4 YEARS. OTHERWISE SENTENCES IMPOSED BELOW CONFIRMED.

_________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - offender convicted of over 2000 property offences - over $3.24M in property taken - offender informed police of majority of offences - but for information offender would not have been convicted of more than 20 offences - police affidavits to effect that applicant provided information relating to the commission of offences by other parties - question as to what reduction in sentence should be made taking those factors into account.

Perrier (No. 2) [1991] 1 V.R. 717
Hayes (1981) 3 A.Crim.R. 286.

Counsel:	Mr D Rangiah for the appellant. Ms L Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Boystown Legal Service for the appellant. Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing Date: 27 October 1994.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 16/11/1994

This is an appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court in relation to 2,289 counts of property offences; there were 886 burglaries, 184 counts of house-breaking, 1,115 counts of stealing, 63 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and smaller numbers of other offences including armed robbery, dangerous driving, wilful damage and attempted false pretences. Of those offences, 2,169 were taken into account under s. 189 of the Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, and those 2,169 offences involved the theft of or damage to property in a sum of about $3.24M. Many of the offences were committed while the applicant was on probation or bail in respect of other offences. The applicant committed the offences from when he was 20 years of age until he was nearly 24.

The judge imposed a variety of sentences of which the highest were as follows. For one count of armed robbery in company and eight counts of burglary, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years and it was recommended that he be considered for parole after 6 years and 7 months; for each count of housebreaking he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with the same recommendation for parole.

It is desirable to say more about the armed robbery count, the only one on which the applicant was tried. The sentencing judge pointed out that, although no violence was used, a threat of violence was made; the robbery was of a service station and was carried out by two men, one of whom was the applicant, who was armed with a rifle. A…

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 [1994] QCA 393
Case: [1994] QCA 393
Decision Date: 16/11/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Thompson, the applicant appealed against the sentences imposed by the District Court for 2,289 counts of property offences. The offences included 886 burglaries, 184 counts of house-breaking, 1,115 counts of stealing, 63 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and other related offences. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years on one count of armed robbery in company and eight counts of burglary, and 12 years imprisonment for each count of house-breaking. The primary issues for the court were to determine the appropriate reduction in sentence for the applicant's co-operation with the police in disclosing information about his own offences and those of other parties.

The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the applicant's co-operation in providing information to the police about his own offences and those of other parties. The court found that the applicant's co-operation had been of great value to the police and had resulted in the detection of many other crimes. The court referred to several precedent cases, including King [1986] 82 Cr.App.R. 120, which established that an expectation of substantial mitigation was required to encourage criminals to provide information of the kind given by the applicant. The court also noted the importance of striking a balance between the objectives of securing co-operation and deterring people from committing crimes by imposing heavy sentences.

The court ultimately decided to reduce the 20-year sentences imposed below to 12 years and recommend that the applicant be considered for parole after having served 4 years. The court emphasised that the magnitude of the reduction in sentence was due to the corresponding magnitude of the offender's co-operation, not only in voluntarily bringing to the attention of the police nearly all the offences of which he had been convicted but also because he had run the risks involved in providing highly valuable information about offenders other than himself. The court confirmed the remaining sentences imposed below, except for the reduction of the 20-year sentences to 12 years with a recommendation for parole after 4 years.

This case highlights the importance of considering an offender's co-operation with the police in determining an appropriate sentence. The court recognised that such co-operation could result in substantial discounts in sentence, provided that the information given was of significant value to the police in detecting and prosecuting other crimes. The court also emphasised the need to strike a balance between the objectives of securing co-operation and deterring people from committing crimes by imposing heavy sentences.

Orders