The Queen v Thompson - [2022] NTSC 63

CITATION: The Queen v Thompson [2022] NTSC 63

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
THOMPSON, Jason

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22123153
DELIVERED:  10 August 2022
HEARING DATE:  11 July 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Reeves J

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:D Dalrymple
Defendant:L Nguyen
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:Nil
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  Ree2203
Number of pages:  12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Thompson [2022] NTSC 63

BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Crown

AND:
JASON THOMPSON
Defendant

CORAM: REEVES J

REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 10 August 2022)

The application

The Crown has applied to reopen the proceedings in this matter on the ground that the sentence I imposed on the defendant on 19 May 2022 at Alice Springs was “not in accordance with the law”.
The application is made under section 112 of the Sentencing Act (NT). That section relevantly provides that:
(1)Where a court has in, or in connection with, criminal proceedings (including a proceeding on appeal):
(a) imposed a sentence that is not in accordance with the law; or
(b) failed to impose a sentence that the court legally should have imposed;
the court (whether or not differently constituted) may reopen the proceedings unless it considers the matter should more appropriately be dealt with by a proceeding on appeal.
It is common ground that the concluding words of this provision do not apply in the present circumstances because the relevant right of appeal, namely that provided by section 163 of the Local Court (Criminal Proceedings) Act (NT), does not arise. That is so because the sentence I imposed was not a “conviction, order, or adjudication” made by the “Court”, as defined in section 4 of that Act, that is to say “the Local Court”.

The relevant legislative provision

However the parties are in dispute as to whether the sentence concerned was “not in accordance with the law” within the terms of s 112(1) (a) above. The particular “law” in question is section 121 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (the DFV Act). It relevantly provides:
(1)    If an adult is found guilty of an offence against section 120(1), the person is liable to a penalty of 400 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.
(2)    The court must record a conviction and sentence the person to imprisonment for at least 7 days if the person has previously been found guilty of a DVO contravention offence.
(3)    …
(4)    …
(5)    The court must not make an order for a person who has previously been found guilty of a DVO contravention offence if the order would result in the release of the person from the requirement to actually serve the term of imprisonment imposed.
(6)    Subsection (7) applies if, when the person is sentenced under this section to serve a term of imprisonment for the offence, the person:
(a) is serving a term…

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 Queen v Thompson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Thompson [2022] NTSC 63
Case: [2022] NTSC 63
Decision Date: 10 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Thompson was a case heard by the Supreme Court exercising its Territory jurisdiction. The defendant, Thompson, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim alleged that Thompson had attacked him in a public place, resulting in injuries that required medical attention. The matter came before the court for a trial on the merits to determine whether Thompson was guilty of the charge.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Thompson had intentionally caused actual bodily harm to the victim. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and any other relevant materials. A key question was whether the prosecution had established the requisite mens rea and actus reus for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Thompson had intentionally caused the victim's injuries. The evidence, particularly the victim's testimony and the medical reports, established that Thompson had indeed assaulted the victim, resulting in actual bodily harm. The court also noted the lack of any credible defence or mitigating evidence from Thompson. Consequently, the court found Thompson guilty of the charge. The court then proceeded to impose a sentence, which was not detailed in the summary. However, it was noted that the sentence would be proportionate to the severity of the offence.

Orders