R v Thompson Summary | CaseChat AU

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 199

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

DERRINGTON J

CA No 50 of 1992

THE QUEEN

RICKY LEE THOMPSON

Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/5/92

ORDER

MACROSSAN CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal

against sentence by the applicant who as an 18 year old first
offender pleaded guilty to two charges, one of breaking,
entering and stealing at a seafood restaurant premises at the

Gold Coast, and a second one of unlawfully using a motor

vehicle without the consent of the owner. The first offence
occurred on 6 February 1992 and the second offence on 15

November 1991. Both offences, in fact, occurred at the Gold

Coast. The sentence imposed was a custodial term, two months

imprisonment in each case, the sentences to be served

concurrently. The facts emphasised on behalf of the applicant
are his youth and the fact that he was a first offender. In

the entry of the seafood restaurant, the items stolen were a

quantity of small goods, lollies, icecreams and frozen foods;

in the second case, the complainant had parked a vehicle

outside a night club at Tallebudgera. It was taken while she
was inside, as indeed she discovered when she later went to
where the vehicle had been parked. It was, however,
discovered next morning at Palm Beach in good condition. The

applicant has already spent two weeks in custody attributable to the present charges. Apart from that he has been on bail.

There is no doubt that the offences were serious ones and the

penalty imposed needs to take that into account, but that

aspect, in my opinion, is outweighed by the considerations

that the applicant was only 18 years of age and had never

previously offended.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate in recognition of

those facts and in accordance with the principles stated on

occasions previously by this Court to interfere. A sentence
other than of a non-custodial nature must be regarded as
excessive, and counsel appearing for the Crown does not
contend otherwise. I would accordingly allow the application
and the appeal against sentence, and in each case order that

the applicant be placed on probation on standard terms for six

months and that he perform 50 hours of community service in

total.

The order for probation would be for the period of six months

and the same period, of course, will apply in respect of each
of the offences. The total of 50 hours community service will

be imposed upon the offence of breaking, entering and

stealing. We are informed that the applicant is prepared to
consent to orders of the kind I have specified and that he
understands their nature. That is correct?

MR RAFTER: Yes.

MACROSSAN CJ: And it appears that he is fully aware of the

consequence of the Court so ordering. In those circumstances,

it is appropriate to make the orders that I have indicated

without further delay or formalities.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DERRINGTON J: I agree.

MACROSSAN CJ: They will be the orders of the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson is an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, Ricky Lee Thompson, who was sentenced to two concurrent months of imprisonment for breaking, entering, and stealing from a seafood restaurant at the Gold Coast, and unlawfully using a motor vehicle. Both offences occurred in 1991 and 1992 at the Gold Coast. Thompson, who was 18 years old and a first offender, pleaded guilty to both charges. The items stolen from the restaurant included small goods such as lollies, ice cream, and frozen foods, and the stolen vehicle was later found at Palm Beach in good condition. Thompson had already spent two weeks in custody and was on bail at the time of the appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given Thompson's age and the fact that he was a first offender. The court had to consider whether the sentence was excessive and if there were other suitable penalties that could be imposed. The Crown counsel did not argue against the notion that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate in this case. The Court of Appeal was required to balance the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors of Thompson's age and lack of prior convictions.

The Court of Appeal, led by Macrossan CJ, found that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors of Thompson's youth and first-time offending were significant. The court acknowledged that the penalty imposed needed to account for the gravity of the offences but concluded that these factors outweighed the need for a custodial sentence. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal against sentence and ordered that Thompson be placed on probation for six months with standard terms and that he perform 50 hours of community service. This decision was in accordance with previous principles stated by the Court of Appeal. Both Davies JA and Derrington J agreed with the decision, leading to the final orders being made without further delay or formalities.

R v Thompson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established