R v Thompson; ex parte - [2003] QCA 200

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thompson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 200

PARTIES:

R
v
THOMPSON, Ian Raymond
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 44 of 2003

DC No 3088 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 May 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Holmes J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, de Jersey CJ and Williams JA concurring as to the orders made, Holmes J dissenting

ORDERS:

1. That the appeal be allowed
2. That the sentence of five years imprisonment in respect of count five, suspended after 18 months for an operational period of five years, be set aside
3. That in lieu thereof, the respondent be imprisoned for six years, with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two and a half years

4. That the sentences imposed in the District Court on 24 January 2003 be otherwise confirmed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondent administered drugs to all complainants, and indecently assaulted two complainants while under influence of drugs – where prosecutor did not demur when judge indicated proposed sentence – where respondent abused professional and personal trust in relation to two complainants – whether sentence manifestly inadequate

Criminal Code (Qld), s 317, s 337(1)(a)

R v Brown [1991] CA No 218 of 1990, 7 March 1991, considered
R v Robertson [1997] QCA 63; CA No 399 of 1996, 4 April 1997; (1997) 91 A Crim R 388, considered

R v White [1998] QCA 68; CA No 473 of 1997, 24 April 1998, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant

R Hanson SC, with A J Kimmins, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant

Price and Roobottom Solicitors for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: The Honourable the Attorney-General appeals, on the ground of manifest inadequacy, against an effective sentence of five years imprisonment suspended after 18 months for five years, imposed following the respondent's pleas of guilty to six charges, three of causing complainants to take a noxious thing with intent to disable (s 317 Criminal Code) and three of unlawful and indecent assault (s 337(1)(a)). The relevant maximum penalties were at the time life imprisonment and 10 years imprisonment respectively. For each of the indecent assaults, the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and for the s 317 offences, terms of two years, four years and five years. The respondent intimated an intention to plead guilty in circumstances where a full committal had taken place, and an application to sever particular charges from the indictment had been carried through: allowance…

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; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson; ex parte [2003] QCA 200
Case: [2003] QCA 200
Decision Date: 16 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Thompson, by the District Court. Thompson was convicted of administering drugs to multiple complainants and indecently assaulting two complainants while under the influence of drugs. The appeal focused on whether the original sentence of five years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, was manifestly inadequate.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was disproportionately lenient considering the gravity of Thompson's crimes. This involved assessing the abuse of professional and personal trust, the impact on the victims, and the severity of the offences. The court noted that the prosecutor did not object when the judge indicated the proposed sentence, which was a significant factor in the appeal.

After considering the arguments presented, the court concluded that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of six years imprisonment, with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two and a half years. The court confirmed the sentences imposed on the other counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the appeal be allowed

2. That the sentence of five years imprisonment in respect of count five, suspended after 18 months for an operational period of five years, be set aside

3. That in lieu thereof, the respondent be imprisoned for six years, with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two and a half years

4. That the sentences imposed in the District Court on 24 January 2003 be otherwise confirmed

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; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 200
PARTIES:	R v THOMPSON, Ian Raymond (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 44 of 2003 DC No 3088 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 May 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, de Jersey CJ and Williams JA concurring as to the orders made, Holmes J dissenting
ORDERS:	1. That the appeal be allowed 2. That the sentence of five years imprisonment in respect of count five, suspended after 18 months for an operational period of five years, be set aside 3. That in lieu thereof, the respondent be imprisoned for six years, with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two and a half years 4. That the sentences imposed in the District Court on 24 January 2003 be otherwise confirmed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondent administered drugs to all complainants, and indecently assaulted two complainants while under influence of drugs – where prosecutor did not demur when judge indicated proposed sentence – where respondent abused professional and personal trust in relation to two complainants – whether sentence manifestly inadequate Criminal Code (Qld), s 317, s 337(1)(a) R v Brown [1991] CA No 218 of 1990, 7 March 1991, considered R v Robertson [1997] QCA 63; CA No 399 of 1996, 4 April 1997; (1997) 91 A Crim R 388, considered R v White [1998] QCA 68; CA No 473 of 1997, 24 April 1998, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant R Hanson SC, with A J Kimmins, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Price and Roobottom Solicitors for the respondent