The King v Thompson

The appeal concerned the interpretation of subsections 121(6)(b) and (7) of the *Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007* (NT). The appellant, the Crown, argued that the sentencing judge had erred in law by not applying these provisions to require the cumulative service of sentences imposed for breaches of a domestic violence order (DVO) during a single sentencing exercise. The respondent had pleaded guilty to four aggravated assaults and four breaches of a DVO, with the conduct underlying both sets of offences being the same. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences for the aggravated assaults and concurrent sentences for the DVO breaches, but then ordered the cumulative service of the total sentence for the assaults with the total sentence for the DVO breaches, resulting in a total of 19 months imprisonment, which was then suspended.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was whether subsection 121(6)(b) of the *Domestic and Family Violence Act* required the accumulation of sentences for DVO contraventions only when the offender had already been serving a sentence for another offence at the time of sentencing, or if it also applied when multiple sentences of imprisonment were imposed for different offences during the same sentencing exercise. Specifically, the court had to determine if, in circumstances where multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed in a single sentencing exercise, the offender is considered to have "been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for another offence" within the meaning of subsection 121(6)(b).

The Court reasoned that the principle of statutory interpretation relied upon by the respondent, which suggests that legislation should not be interpreted to inadvertently alter fundamental rights and freedoms, should not be extended to shield offenders from clearly identified legislative objects. Applying this reasoning, the Court held that when multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed in a single sentencing exercise, the offender is indeed considered to have been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for another offence for the purposes of subsection 121(6)(b). Consequently, subsection 121(7) mandates that all sentences for DVO contraventions must be served cumulatively upon each other and any other sentence imposed. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not in accordance with the law.

Despite finding that the sentencing judge had erred, the Court dismissed the appeal in the exercise of its residual discretion. The Court considered that resentencing the respondent would not significantly alter the outcome due to totality principles, and that the error was not so serious as to require reversal. The Court also noted that its reasons would provide guidance to lower courts on the correct application of the relevant provisions.