Legal Research
Cases
Thompson v The Queen

Thompson v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 186 27 July 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 186

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 186
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	27/07/2000
Case No:	CCA:42/1998	Heard:	7 JUNE 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY ACJ WALLWORK J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	7/06/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Question of indeterminate sentence remitted to District Court
PDF Version

Parties:	JASON ANTHONY THOMPSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal and new trial Sentencing Power of Court of Criminal Appeal to remit matter to District Court for re-sentencing
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 689(3), s 697 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 58(1)(a), s 59(1)
Case References:	Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390 R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990074; 19 February 1999 R v Gooch (1989) 43 A Crim R 382 R v Lowndes (1997) 95 A Crim R 516 R v Mackay, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970689; 10 December 1997 R v Moffat [1998] 2 VR 229 Siganto v The Queen (No 2) (1999) 106 A Crim R 30

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 186 CORAM : KENNEDY ACJ

WALLWORK J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 7 JUNE 2000 DELIVERED : 7 JUNE 2000 PUBLISHED : 27 JULY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 42 of 1998

CCA 43 of 1998

BETWEEN : JASON ANTHONY THOMPSON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal and new trial - Sentencing - Power of Court of Criminal Appeal to remit matter to District Court for re-sentencing

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 689(3), s 697

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 58(1)(a), s 59(1)

(Page 2)

Result:

Question of indeterminate sentence remitted to District Court

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D Grace QC & Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390
R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192
R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219

Case(s) also cited:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276
Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86
R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171
R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990074; 19 February 1999
R v Gooch (1989) 43 A Crim R 382

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 [2000] WASCA 186
Case: [2000] WASCA 186
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Thompson, was convicted of multiple counts of serious criminal offences and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence by the District Court. Thompson appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the District Court had failed to properly consider the principles of sentencing. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which held the power to remit the matter back to the District Court for re-sentencing if necessary.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether the District Court had correctly applied the principles of sentencing. The court needed to determine if the District Court's failure to properly consider the sentencing principles warranted a re-sentencing by the same court. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate powers it possessed in relation to remitting the matter for re-sentencing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the District Court had indeed failed to properly consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the length of the indeterminate sentence. The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Given these findings, the Court of Criminal Appeal remitted the matter back to the District Court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the court properly considered the relevant sentencing principles. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not alter the conviction but focused solely on the sentencing aspect of the case.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal remitted the matter back to the District Court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the court properly considered the relevant sentencing principles. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not alter the conviction but focused solely on the sentencing aspect of the case. This decision highlights the importance of the proper application of sentencing principles and the role of the Court of Criminal Appeal in reviewing sentences imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Question of indeterminate sentence remitted to District Court

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 186

Most Recent Citation

Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 392

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v Armitage, Armitage and Dean
[2020] QSC 41

…guished R v Wellham and Martin [2012] QCA 103, distinguished R v Wong [1995] 16 WAR 219, cited Thompson v R [2000] WASCA 186, cited…
Environment Protection Authority v Wollondilly Abattoirs Pty Limited & Davis
[2019] NSWCCA 312

…61 at 365 per Winneke P; R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; R v Palmieri [1998] 1 VR 486 at 501–2 per Charles JA; Thompson v R (2000) 113 A Crim R 295; [2000] WASCA 186; R v Kreutzer (2013) 118 SASR 211; [2013] SASCFC 130 at [9] per Kourakis CJ, at [55] per Gray and Blue JJ]. A general power of remittal was introduced…
Yarran v The Queen
[2003] WASCA 130

…ds [1999] WASCA 105 R v Walsh, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950385; 4 August 1995 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 186; (2000) 113 A Crim R 295 Wayman v The Queen [2001] WASCA 326; (2001) 126 A Crim R 203 Wongawol (1998) 101 A Crim R 350…
R v Pallister
[2002] WASCA 68 (S)

…ampbell (No 2) (1981) 6 A Crim R 208 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Thompson (2000) 113 A Crim R 295 Thompson v R (1999) 165 ALR 219 Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 186 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 McAdam v Robertson (1999) 73 SASR 360 R v Pallister [2002] WASCA 68 Rayner…
R v Pallister
[2002] WASCA 68 Para 2

…The first sentence of that passage is in error. The decisions of this Court of R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 and Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 186 are both authority for the proposition that the Court of Criminal Appeal has power to remit a matter to the District Court so that a convicted person may be re‑sentence…
McGarry v The Queen
[2001] HCA 62 Para 12

…[3], 1322 [17]; 165 ALR 219 at 220, 224. [67](1999) 73 ALJR 1319; 165 ALR 219. The power to remit has been upheld in Western Australia: R v Thompson [2000] WASCA 186 at [9]‑[11], considering R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219; R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192.…
Thompson v The Queen
[2000] WASCA 392

…95) 16 WAR 219 RHMcL v The Queen (2000) 174 ALR 1 Stanton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920298; 28 May 1992 Thompson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 186 Thompson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980600; 19 October 1998…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Wong
[2015] NSWSC 1612

…9 In R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219, Ipp J, in whose judgment Franklyn and Anderson JJ concurred, said, at 228:…
Narrier v The Queen
[2000] WASCA 86

…16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990074; 19 February 1999 R v Go…
McGarry v The Queen
[1999] WASCA 276

…v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Librar…
Thompson v The Queen
[1999] HCA 43

…3 In their reasons for judgment published on 2 September 1997 ((1999) 73 ALJR 1319), Gaudron and Hayne JJ held that this Court, having found that the pre-sentence and psychological reports relied upon by the sentencing Judge were prepared in some haste, with the further consequence that the psychological assessment wh…
Siganto v the Queen
[1998] HCA 74

…Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390 R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 3…
Nicholas v The Queen
[1998] HCA 9

…1989) 43 A Crim R 382 R v Lowndes (1997) 95 A Crim R 516 R v Mackay, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970689; 10 December 1997 R v Moffat [1998] 2 VR 229 Siganto v The Queen (No 2) (1999) 106 A Crim R 30…
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 36

…Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390 R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, unreported; CC…
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34

…Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390 R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, u…
Lowndes v The Queen
[1999] HCA 299

…Pantorno v R (1989) 84 ALR 390 R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Dunstan, unreported…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
58(1)(a) 2 mentions
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
1 mention
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
1 mention
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
1 mention