Legal Research
Cases
Thompson v R

Thompson v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 299 24 October 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Thompson v R [2007] NSWCCA 299
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 2 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Hislop J at 2; Latham J at 45

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Criminal Appeal Act, 1912

CASES CITED: R v Thomson & Houlton (1999-2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Cameron (2005) 157 A Crim R 70
R v Vukic [2003] NSWCCA 13
R v Jaworowski (1999) 108 A Crim R 489
R v Woodward [2001] NSWCCA 90
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES: Robert Thompson v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/00004949

COUNSEL: P. Byrne SC/P. Johnson (Applicant)
N. Adams (Crown)

SOLICITORS: The Law Practice (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/3360

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 27 June 2006

2006/00004949

HODGSON JA
HISLOP J
LATHAM J
Wednesday 24 October 2007

Robert THOMPSON v REGINA

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J :

Introduction

2 On 20 March 2006 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge that on 15 August 2003 at Couridjah in the State of New South Wales he did drive a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons, whereby the vehicle was involved in an impact, as a result of which the death of Andrea Carson was occasioned, and in circumstances of aggravation, namely that he was driving the vehicle at a speed that exceeded, by more than 45 kph, the speed limit applicable to that length of road. He also pleaded guilty to a similar charge in respect of the death of Carmel Perkins. The maximum penalty for each offence was 14 years imprisonment - Crimes Act, 1900, s 52A(2).

3 The pleas of guilty were accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment presented against the applicant which included counts of manslaughter in respect of the deaths.

4 On 27 June 2006 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to a non parole period of five years imprisonment with a total sentence of eight years imprisonment in respect of each offence. The sentence in respect of the first offence commenced on 27 June 2006, the second on 27 December 2008. The total effective sentence imposed upon the applicant was thus a non parole period of seven and a half years with an additional term of three years.

5 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against those sentences.

6 In addition to the above charges, there were related and back-up charges which were dealt with pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

7 The facts, which were either agreed or were the subject…

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 Thompson v R

Details

AGLC: Thompson v R [2007] NSWCCA 299
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 299
Decision Date: 24 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the court involved the applicant, Thompson, who had pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving causing death under circumstances of aggravation. The matter was brought before the court to challenge the severity of the sentence imposed. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed for each individual offence and the overall aggregate sentence fell within the discretionary range that was open to the sentencing judge. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there were any other sentencing errors that warranted a review or alteration of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate in light of the statutory guidelines and whether the sentence was within the discretionary range. The court examined the specific details of the dangerous driving incident, including the circumstances of the aggravation, to determine if the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and if there were any procedural errors that could have influenced the outcome of the sentencing.

Upon review, the court found that the sentence imposed for each individual offence and the overall aggregate sentence were within the discretionary range available to the sentencing judge. The court determined that the sentencing judge had properly considered the statutory guidelines and the circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that no other sentencing errors had been established and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders