THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 230

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 230
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:57/2001	Heard:	25 JULY 2002
Coram:	MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	25/07/02
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JASON ANTHONY THOMPSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Appeal against order for indefinite imprisonment and ineligibility for parole
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 98
Case References:	Garlett v The Queen [2000] WASCA 72 McGarry v The Queen (2001) 184 ALR 225 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 230 CORAM : MURRAY J

TEMPLEMAN J

McKECHNIE J

HEARD : 25 JULY 2002 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 57 of 2001 BETWEEN : JASON ANTHONY THOMPSON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Appeal against order for indefinite imprisonment and ineligibility for parole

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 98

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Garlett v The Queen [2000] WASCA 72
McGarry v The Queen (2001) 184 ALR 225
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: This is an appeal against a sentence imposed on Jason Anthony Thompson by her Honour Judge Yeats in the District Court on 16 March 2001. The sentence included an order for indefinite imprisonment pursuant to s 98 of the Sentencing Ac 1995 (WA). An order for indefinite imprisonment can be made only if a superior court sentences an offender for an indictable offence to a term of imprisonment, does not suspend that imprisonment and does not make a parole eligibility order in respect of that term. The challenge to the order made by Judge Yeats is both to her Honour's refusal to make a parole eligibility order and the order for indefinite imprisonment.

2 There is quite a history to this matter because the applicant was sentenced previously by Judge Yeats to a term of imprisonment and an order for an indefinite imprisonment was made. That sentence was appealed to this Court which upheld it and from there to the High Court which allowed the appeal.

3 The reason given by the majority of the High Court for allowing the earlier appeal was that the pre-sentence and psychological reports relied upon by Judge Yeats were prepared in some haste, with the consequence that the psychological assessment which was carried out was not comprehensive.

4 That being so, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Court of Criminal Appeal without expressing any…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Thompson v The Queen [2002] WASCA 230
Case: [2002] WASCA 230
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v The Queen involved the appellant, Thompson, who was appealing against his sentence and the order for indefinite imprisonment and ineligibility for parole. The appellant was convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The High Court was asked to review the severity of the sentence and the conditions imposed on the appellant's release.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly excessive and whether the conditions for indefinite imprisonment and ineligibility for parole were justified. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and that the conditions were punitive rather than rehabilitative. The court was required to balance the gravity of the crimes committed against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation in sentencing.

In its judgment, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The court also concluded that the conditions for indefinite imprisonment and ineligibility for parole were appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes and the risk the appellant posed to the community. The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the sentence was disproportionate or that the conditions were punitive rather than rehabilitative. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence and conditions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.