The King v Thomas Prescott Hill - [2024] QSC 196

Sentencing Remarks

The King v Thomas Prescott Hill [2024] QSC 196

The Hon Justice Copley

27 August 2024

(draft remarks to be revised against official transcript)

Thomas Prescott Hill, on 19 August 2024 you pleaded guilty to: a count of manslaughter committed on 31 March 2019; a count of dangerous operation of a vehicle and a count of assault occasioning bodily harm both committed on 20 July 2018; and to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm both committed on 21 March 2019.

You pleaded guilty to a number of summary offences. You pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle without a driver’s licence whilst disqualified by court order and failing to remain at a road incident and assisting an injured person. These two offences are connected to the count of manslaughter. You also pleaded guilty to contravening a domestic violence order and committing a public nuisance. These two offences occurred on 21 March 2019.

The indictment charging you with the count of manslaughter was presented on 19 August 2024. Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The indictment charging you with the other counts was also presented on 19 August 2024. The maximum penalty for assault occasioning bodily harm is 7 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for dangerous operation of a vehicle is 3 years imprisonment.

In imposing sentences on you I take into account your pleas of guilty to these counts and to the summary charges. I have reduced the sentences I am going to impose because those pleas of guilty demonstrate cooperation with the administration of justice. Much of this court’s time has been saved. I proceed on the basis that in all the circumstances these have been timely pleas of guilty.

You were born on 7 November 1986. You were 31 years old when the dangerous operation of a vehicle and the assault occasioning bodily harm of 20 July 2018 were committed. You were 32 when the other counts occurred. You are now 37.

The circumstances of the offences were as follows.

I will deal first with the offending of 20 July 2018.

A young woman was driving her vehicle at about 100km/hour along the Pacific Highway south of Brisbane when you came behind her vehicle. Your vehicle travelled closely behind her. She slowed and when it was safe to do so moved into the left lane. You drove past her and without indicating veered into the lane she was in. She beeped her horn. Your vehicle hit her car. This driving constitutes the count of dangerous operation of a vehicle. You put your window down and yelled at her. She drove on, you followed her and cut her off. She took evasive action to avoid a collision and drove past you and drove off the highway at an exit ramp. She stopped at a red traffic light. You pulled up beside her vehicle and yelled at her. She entered a car park and stopped. You stopped behind her. She got out of her vehicle. You…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The King v Thomas Prescott Hill and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QSC 196
Decision Date: 27 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Thomas Prescott Hill was sentenced for a series of serious offences, including manslaughter, dangerous operation of a vehicle, and multiple counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court considered Hill's mental state, particularly his paranoid schizophrenia, which was not being treated at the time of the offences, and its impact on his capacity to control his actions. The court also noted Hill's history of violence and his failure to show remorse. In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need to protect the community, the personal circumstances of the victim, and Hill's rehabilitation prospects.

The court decided that the sentences for the manslaughter and related offences should be served concurrently to reflect Hill's mental condition and his plea of guilty. The court imposed a sentence of 10 years for the manslaughter, with additional sentences for the other charges, all to be served concurrently. The court also ordered that Hill be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two years and be of good behaviour towards his mother for five years. The court declared that the time Hill had already spent in custody would count towards the sentences imposed.

Orders