Legal Research
Cases
R v Thompson

R v Thompson

Case [2008] NSWSC 109 14 March 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Thompson [2008] NSWSC 109

HEARING DATE(S): 08/11/2007, 12/11/2007, 14/11/2007, 08/02/2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 years to commence on 28 February 2006 and to expire on 27 February 2021 with a balance of term of 5 years to expire on 27 February 2026, that is a total sentence of 20 years. The earliest date eligible for release on parole 28 February 2021.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence for murder - murder of partner after night of drinking - application of standard non-parole period - aggravating and mitigating factors.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 at [122]
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 at [43]
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 at [34]
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 444 at [171]
R v Previtera (1977) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Robinson [2007] NSWSC 460
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thomson & Houlton [(2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Vu [2005] NSWSC 271
R v Way [2004] 60 NSWLR 168
R v White [2005] NSWSC 667

PARTIES: Regina
John Frederick Thompson - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 342/2007

COUNSEL: Mr Paul Lynch - Crown
Ms Anita Betts - Offender

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday, 14 March 2008

342/2007 - REGINA v John Frederick THOMPSON
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: John Frederick Thompson (hereinafter called “the offender”) pleaded guilty to the offence that on 28 January 2006 at Airds in the State of New South Wales he did murder Fallon Baker contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900.

2 The offender advised the Court on 8 November 2007 that he intended to plead guilty to the charge on the basis that his intention at the time was to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The Crown advised the Court that it accepted the offender’s plea on that basis. His trial was due to commence on 12 November 2007 and his plea of guilty was formally entered on that day.

3 It is now my responsibility to sentence the offender for that crime, having heard submissions on sentence from both the Crown and Ms Betts, counsel for the offender, on 14 November 2007 and 8 February 2008.

Background facts

4 At the time of the offence the deceased (aged 18) and the offender (aged 22) lived together at 20 Dangar Way, Airds. They had been in a de facto relationship for about three years. They had one child from the relationship, Dylan, who was 19 months old.

5 There was a history of domestic discord in…

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] NSWSC 109
Case: [2008] NSWSC 109
Decision Date: 14 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson involved the appellant, Thompson, who was convicted of the murder of his partner following a night of heavy drinking. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive or inadequate, and whether the court had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The court was required to consider whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the imposition of a non-parole period and whether the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the culpability of the offender.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. The court acknowledged that the offence involved a premeditated act of violence against a vulnerable person and that there was a history of domestic violence. However, it also recognised that Thompson had shown remorse and had cooperated with authorities since his arrest. The court held that the sentence imposed was neither excessive nor inadequate, and that it appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders