THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 47

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 47
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:49/1999	Heard:	2 DECEMBER 1999
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J ANDERSON J	Delivered:	1/03/00
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID RONALD THOMPSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Sexual assault Multiple counts involving six female complainants Plea of guilty Aggregate sentence of 15 years Parole eligibility refused Order for indefinite imprisonment Sentences upheld Principles with respect to refusal of parole and indefinite sentences discussed
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995, s 89, s 98 Sentence Administration Act 1995
Case References:	Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 R v Moffatt [1998] 2 VR 229 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Thompson v The Queen [1999] HCA 43 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THOMPSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 47 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

WALLWORK J

ANDERSON J

HEARD : 2 DECEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 1 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 49 of 1999 BETWEEN : DAVID RONALD THOMPSON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Sexual assault - Multiple counts involving six female complainants - Plea of guilty - Aggregate sentence of 15 years - Parole eligibility refused - Order for indefinite imprisonment - Sentences upheld - Principles with respect to refusal of parole and indefinite sentences discussed

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995, s 89, s 98

Sentence Administration Act 1995

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R A Mazza

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms J Andretich

Solicitors:

Applicant : Nicholson Clement

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 73 ALJR 1007
McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276
R v Moffatt [1998] 2 VR 229
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387
Thompson v The Queen [1999] HCA 43

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this application for leave to appeal should be granted but the appeal should be dismissed. I have reached this conclusion for the reasons to be published by Anderson J. I only wish to add one or two comments of my own.

2 The sole issue raised by the appeal against sentence relates to the imposition of the indefinite sentence on top of the finite terms for the various offences for which the aggregate term was imprisonment for 15 years. There is no application for leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence or any of the individual sentences imposed by the learned Judge, or the way in which they were structured. Consequently, there is…

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 47
Case: [2000] WASCA 47
Decision Date: 1 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a case involving the defendant, Thompson, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault against six female complainants. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal contested the severity of the aggregate sentence of 15 years, the refusal of parole eligibility, and the imposition of an indefinite imprisonment order. The core legal issues revolved around whether the sentence was excessive and whether the refusal of parole eligibility and the imposition of an indefinite sentence were justified under the circumstances.

The High Court examined the principles guiding the refusal of parole eligibility and the imposition of indefinite sentences in cases of serious sexual offences. It held that the sentence, which was the result of multiple serious offences against multiple victims, was not excessive. The court further found that the refusal of parole eligibility and the imposition of an indefinite sentence were warranted given the nature and gravity of the crimes committed. The decision underscored the need for the courts to consider the protection of the community and the seriousness of the offences when determining appropriate sentences for such crimes.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's sentence. The court affirmed that the aggregate sentence of 15 years, the refusal of parole eligibility, and the indefinite imprisonment order were appropriate given the nature of the offences and the need to protect the community. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the gravity of the crimes and the protection of potential victims in the sentencing process.

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.