Robert John Thomas v The Queen

The case of *Robert John Thomas v The Queen* was an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Robert John Thomas, sought to appeal against a sentence imposed on him in 1999. The core of the dispute concerned the cumulative nature of the sentence imposed by Crispin J, which was to be served after the balance of a previous sentence. The appellant argued that this cumulative sentencing method was erroneous and that the sentences should have been served concurrently.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge, Crispin J, had erred in principle by ordering the sentence to be served cumulatively on an earlier sentence, the balance of which was to be served due to parole revocation. The court was also required to consider the effect of the then-operative *Parole Act 1976* (ACT) on the appellant's liability to serve the remainder of his earlier sentence. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether pre-sentence custody had been correctly accounted for in the final sentence, and whether the overall length of the sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Parole Act 1976* (ACT), specifically sections 22 and 24, mandated that when an offender commits an offence during a parole period, the parole order is deemed revoked. This meant the appellant was liable to serve the remaining period of his earlier sentence before commencing any new sentence. Consequently, there was no basis for the sentences to be served concurrently, and the decision to impose a cumulative sentence was not an error of principle. The court also found that the pre-sentence custody of 67 days was correctly accounted for by deducting it from the new sentence, as it was impracticable to backdate the sentence due to the outstanding parole obligations. The court affirmed that the sentencing judge had properly applied the relevant legislation and sentencing principles, and the overall sentence was not excessive given the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing method or the principles applied by the sentencing judge. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed.