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.
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:
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:
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…
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 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.