Thompsett v The Queen

Case [2001] WASCA 8

THOMPSETT -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 8



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASCA 8
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:270/19996 JUNE 2000
Coram:KENNEDY J
MURRAY J
PARKER J		31/01/01
17Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:BENJAMIN STEPHEN THOMPSETT
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure
Sentencing
Murder
Sentence of life imprisonment with minimum term of 11 years
Applicant having history of substance abuse
Claims of schizophrenia and attention deficit disorder not supported
Applicant mildly intellectually handicapped
Deprived background
Minimum term upheld

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1
Lauritsen v The Queen [2000] WASCA 203
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Sherratt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 112
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Celetano v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960150; 21 March 1996
Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295
Kenneally v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980284; 27 May 1998
Oldham v The Queen [1999] WASCA 304
Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127
R v Bell (1992) 62 A Crim R 66
R v Dalgety [2000] WASCA 10
Radalj v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970059; 20 February 1997
Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998
Wicks v The Queen (1989) 3 WAR 372

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THOMPSETT -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 8 CORAM : KENNEDY J
    MURRAY J
    PARKER J
HEARD : 6 JUNE 2000 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 270 of 1999 BETWEEN : BENJAMIN STEPHEN THOMPSETT
    Applicant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Murder - Sentence of life imprisonment with minimum term of 11 years - Applicant having history of substance abuse - Claims of schizophrenia and attention deficit disorder not supported - Applicant mildly intellectually handicapped - Deprived background - Minimum term upheld




Legislation:

Nil



(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

Representation:


Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr R E Lindsay
    Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC


Solicitors:

    Applicant : Robert Lindsay
    Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1
Lauritsen v The Queen [2000] WASCA 203
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Sherratt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 112
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Case(s) also cited:



Celetano v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960150; 21 March 1996
Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295
Kenneally v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980284; 27 May 1998
Oldham v The Queen [1999] WASCA 304
Paparone v The Queen…

Continue reading Thompsett v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thompsett v The Queen [2001] WASCA 8
Case
[2001] WASCA 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the respondent, Thompsett, seeking leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Thompsett was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. The applicant contended that the sentence was excessive due to his history of substance abuse, claims of schizophrenia and attention deficit disorder, and his background of intellectual disability and deprivation. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the applicant's personal circumstances.

The court considered the severity of the crime, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the applicant. In assessing the applicant's history of substance abuse and claims of mental health issues, the court found that these factors, while relevant, did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crime committed. The court found that the applicant's claims of schizophrenia and attention deficit disorder were not supported by the evidence. The court also acknowledged the applicant's intellectual disability and deprived background, but these factors were not deemed sufficient to warrant a significantly reduced non-parole period. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and the need to protect society, and therefore, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court found no basis to reduce the non-parole period, affirming that the sentence was fair and just under the circumstances. The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.