R v Thorn

Case [2010] ACTCA 10


THE QUEEN v JAMES THORN [2010] ACTCA 10 (28 MAY 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – Crown appeal against inadequacy – appellate court not to substitute its views for that of the sentencing judge – sentence imposed do not manifest error – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – factors to be taken into account – purposes of sentencing under s7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – partly consecutive sentences – principles of totality.

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7, 63

Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Stirrat [2003] NSWCCA 350
Hawkins v Hawkins (2009) 3 ACTLR 210

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 25-2009 
No. SCC 420/2007; 75A/2008; 75B/2008; 75C/2008; 162A/2008; 162C/2008;162D/2008; 162E/2008; 186/2008; 301/2008; 412A/2008; 413/2008; 99/2009; 278/2009

Judges:         Gray P, Refshauge and North JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            28 May 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 25-2009
  )          No. SCC 420 of 2007;
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 75A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 75B of 2008;
COURT OF APPEAL  )          No. SCC 75C of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162C of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162D of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162E of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 186 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 301 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 412A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 413 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 99 of 2009;
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:JAMES THORN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Gray P, Refshauge and North JJ
Date:  28 May 2010 
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 25-2009
  )          No. SCC 420 of 2007;
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 75A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 75B of 2008;
COURT OF APPEAL  )          No. SCC 75C of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162C of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162D of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 162E of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 186 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 301 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 412A of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 413 of 2008;
  )          No. SCC 99 of 2009;
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:JAMES THORN

Respondent

Judges:  Gray P, Refshauge and North JJ
Date:  28 May 2010 
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against the inadequacy of a sentence imposed upon James Thorn (the respondent) in respect of the offences committed by him dating back to 3 October 2007 and concluding on 18 November 2008.  The respondent was sentenced on 7 September 2009 to four years six months imprisonment (wrongly described in the good…

Continue reading R v Thorn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10
Case
[2010] ACTCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge on the respondent, R. The appeal concerned the sentencing of the respondent for various offences.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge manifested an error, and if so, whether it was demonstrably inadequate. The court was required to consider the purposes of sentencing as outlined in section 7 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT), including the imposition of partly consecutive sentences and the principle of totality.

The appellate court affirmed that an appellate court should not substitute its own views for those of the sentencing judge unless there is a clear error. The court found that the sentence imposed did not manifest such an error, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.