THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 178

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 178
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:19/2001	Heard:	7 JUNE 2001
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	7/06/01
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL JAMES THOMPSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail pending appeal Whether exceptional circumstances Prospects of success on appeal Likelihood that substantial custodial portion of sentence would be served
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 178 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 7 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 7 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 19 of 2001 BETWEEN : PAUL JAMES THOMPSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail pending appeal - Whether exceptional circumstances - Prospects of success on appeal - Likelihood that substantial custodial portion of sentence would be served

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms J A Girdham

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is a notice of motion for bail pending appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court on 15 December 2000. There was one count of attempted robbery whilst armed with a syringe and in company. One count of burglary and unlawful possession were also taken into account pursuant to s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).

2 On 19 January the applicant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on the attempted armed robbery, 12 months' imprisonment on the burglary cumulative on the first sentence and a term of 2 months' imprisonment concurrent on the charge of unlawful possession. His conviction on these matters placed him in breach of intensive supervision orders which had been imposed previously. The intensive supervision orders were discharged and the learned sentencing Judge imposed a term of 9 months' imprisonment in respect of each of the offences for which that had been imposed, they being burglary, five attempted frauds and unlawful possession of a house-breaking implement. Those terms were ordered to be concurrent with each other but cumulative upon the terms imposed in respect of the offence on the indictment and those under s 32 of the Sentencing Act. The overall sentence was a term of imprisonment of 3 years' 9 months with eligibility for parole and the sentence was backdated to 25 July 2000.

3 The notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence was filed on 7 February 2001. The application came before Miller J on 26 March and on that occasion an order was made that the hearing be expedited. It does appear from what the…

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 [2001] WASCA 178
Case: [2001] WASCA 178
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v The Queen involved the applicant seeking bail pending an appeal against a conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to imprisonment. The High Court was asked to determine whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending the outcome of the appeal. The central issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified granting bail to the applicant while the appeal was being heard. The court was also required to consider the prospects of success on appeal and the likelihood that the applicant would serve a substantial portion of the custodial sentence if bail were denied.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles governing bail pending appeal. The court acknowledged that bail is not an automatic right and that the decision to grant bail is a matter of judicial discretion. The court examined the exceptional circumstances test, which requires the applicant to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the grant of bail. The court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail. Furthermore, the court considered the prospects of success on appeal and found that the appeal was unlikely to succeed. The court also noted that if the appeal were unsuccessful, the applicant would have to serve a substantial portion of the custodial sentence. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the exceptional circumstances test was not satisfied and refused the applicant's application for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail refused

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.