R v Thompson

In the matter of R v Thompson, the defendant stood before the court facing sentencing for two sets of criminal charges: handling stolen goods and burglary and theft. The plea presentment related to the handling of stolen goods, while the trial presentment concerned burglary and theft. On the first day of the trial, the defendant entered a plea of guilty for the trial presentment charges. An early indication of a plea in relation to the plea presentment was also given. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the delay in entering the plea and the defendant's criminal history, which included extensive offending and little evidence of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the sentence imposed was excessive and if there was a need for a re-sentencing due to fresh evidence regarding parole violations.

The court had to navigate several complex issues in this case. The primary concern was whether the delay in entering the plea for the plea presentment was sufficiently accounted for in the sentence. Given the extraordinary delay, the court had to determine if the delay warranted a longer sentence or if the sentence already imposed was adequate. The court also had to consider the totality of the defendant's criminal history, the lack of compelling evidence of rehabilitation, and the risk of further offending. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was a manifest excess, and whether the appellant's conduct while on parole constituted fresh evidence that warranted a re-sentencing.

The court found that while the delay in entering the plea was significant, the sentence imposed did reflect adequate mitigation for that delay. However, the court also determined that the delay had not been expressly addressed by either the sentencing judge or the appellant's counsel at the time of sentencing. Despite this, the court concluded that there was no manifest excess in the sentence. Regarding the fresh evidence of parole violations, the court found that the appellant should serve the three years’ outstanding parole and thus allowed the appeal. The appellant was re-sentenced by the court.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the appellant serve the three years’ outstanding parole in addition to the sentence previously imposed. This re-sentencing took into account the fresh evidence of parole violations and the need to address the appellant's ongoing criminal conduct.