Thompson v The Queen

Case [2005] WASCA 223


THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2005] WASCA 223



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 223
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CCA:179/20043 OCTOBER 2005
Coram:STEYTLER P
MCLURE JA
22/11/05
26Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
D
PDF Version
Parties:GEORGE ANDREW THOMPSON
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Appeal against sentence
Serious case of fraud
Whether sentence manifestly excessive
Whether sufficient weight given to appellant's mental illness
Whether sufficient consideration given to effect of imprisonment on mentally unwell offender
Sentences ordinarily imposed in serious cases of fraud

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 16G, s 29D
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4)(a)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 16A, s 134.2(1)
Criminal Code (WA), s 27, s 689(3)
National Health Act 1953 (Cth), s 62(1)(f)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth), s 83(1)
Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), cl 2(1), Sch 1

Case References:

Anderson v The Queen [1981] VR 155
Beard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 262
Grubb v The Queen [2002] WASCA 158
Hladin v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 50
Kaye v The Queen [2004] WASCA 227
Lauritsen v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 442
McKenna v The Queen [1999] NSWCCA 358
R v Bahntoff, unreported; VIC SCA; No 21 of 1998; 14 May 1998
R v Balchin (1974) 9 SASR 64
R v Boian (1997) 96 A Crim R 582
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hurd (1988) 38 A Crim R 454
R v Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31
R v Letteri, unreported; NSW CCA; No 60497 of 1991; 18 March 1992
R v Ottobrino [1999] WASCA 207
R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328
R v Paparone (2000) 112 A Crim R 190
R v Payne (2002) 131 A Crim R 432
R v Ramanah, unreported; WA District Court (Wisbey DCJ); IND 476 of 2005; 11 May 2005
R v Ramdhun, unreported; ACT SCt (Gallop J); SCC 92 of 1994; 3 August 1995
R v Reynolds (1983) 10 A Crim R 30
R v Richards [1999] WASCA 105
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
R v Stitt (1998) 102 A Crim R 428
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Caratti v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 527
Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1
Cooley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 160
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamman, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; Library Nos 60388 and 60457 of 1998; 1 December 1998
Faure v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 315
Li v The Queen [2000] WASCA 340
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR…

Continue reading Thompson v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thompson v The Queen [2005] WASCA 223
Case
[2005] WASCA 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thompson v The Queen, the appellant, Thompson, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment. Thompson appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the court had not sufficiently taken into account his mental illness or the potential detrimental effect of imprisonment on his condition. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the appellant's mental health.

The court considered the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It also examined the appellant's mental health history and the impact of imprisonment on mentally unwell individuals. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental illness and had balanced this with the need to protect the community and uphold the law. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that sufficient weight had been given to the mitigating factors, including the appellant's mental health.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate under the circumstances, and the appellant's mental illness had been adequately considered. The leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal 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.