The King v Thompson - [2025] NTSC 17

CITATION:The King v Thompson [2025] NTSC 17
PARTIES:THE KING

v
THOMPSON, Vincent

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22420803
DELIVERED:  20 February 2025
HEARING DATE:  18 February 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  Lasry AJ

CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) s 97, s 137 – Tendency evidence – whether probative value of tendency evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect on the accused – Evidence not admitted
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 208H(1)
Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act2011 (NT), s 97, s 97(1), s 97(1)(a)
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300, referred to

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:R Everitt
Accused:J Bach
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Legal Aid NT
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Las2501
Number of pages:  9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The King v Thompson [2025] NTSC 17

No. 22420803

BETWEEN:

THE KING

AND:

VINCENT THOMPSON

CORAM: LASRY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 20 February 2025)

Vincent Thompson is charged on indictment that on Monday 10 June 2024, at Darwin in the Northern Territory, he intentionally engaged in sexual intercourse, namely penile/vaginal penetration, with BD (‘complainant’), without her consent and being reckless as to the lack of consent, contrary to s 208H(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT).
In broad terms, the Crown alleged that the accused, a 35-year-old Indigenous male, was on Mitchell Street in Darwin on the relevant date. The complainant was also on Mitchell Street and sitting with family members, drinking alcohol. At 8:30 pm, the accused gestured to the complainant for her to come and speak to him, and she did.
He asked her whether she wanted to come with him and drink alcohol, which he had hidden nearby, to which she responded that he could bring the alcohol to her and her family so they could all drink it. The accused replied that he feared the police would intervene if he did that. The accused is then alleged to have told the complainant that his name was Sonny and that he was from Ngukurr. The accused’s claim that he was from Ngukurr made the complainant feel comfortable, because it was familiar to her. The accused is then alleged to have led the complainant along Peel Street and into Bicentennial Park to a set of stairs out of the view of the public.
The accused is then alleged to have told the complainant to remove her shorts, and when she attempted to leave it is alleged he grabbed the complainant by the shirt and prevented her from leaving. The complainant was of the belief that if she did not comply she would be physically assaulted, and so she began to remove her shorts.
The accused took over and finished undoing her shorts. He then told the complainant to lie on the ground…

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 The King v Thompson

Details

AGLC: The King v Thompson [2025] NTSC 17
Case: [2025] NTSC 17
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard a case involving Vincent Thompson, who was charged with intentionally engaging in sexual intercourse with a complainant without her consent. The Crown sought to admit tendency evidence relating to an earlier incident involving the accused and another female victim. The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the earlier incident had significant probative value in proving the absence of consent in the current case.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant authorities in determining the admissibility of the tendency evidence. The court noted that for such evidence to be admitted, it must have significant probative value on an issue in the case. The court held that the similarities between the two incidents were too broad and the differences too significant for the earlier incident to make the absence of consent in the current case more likely. The court concluded that the tendency evidence did not have significant probative value and therefore was not admissible. The court ruled that the evidence should not be admitted as it could not be said to make the absence of consent more likely to a significant extent.

The court ultimately found that the tendency evidence did not have sufficient probative value to outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. The court determined that the similarities between the two incidents were not sufficient to justify admitting the evidence. The court held that the evidence was not capable of making the absence of consent in the current case more likely. The court therefore ruled that the tendency evidence should not be admitted.

Orders