SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Thomson v The Queen; The Queen v Thomson |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 16 |
Hearing Date: | 3 November 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 14 October 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Burns and Ross JJ |
Decision: | See [71] |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Appeal – general principles – appeal against conviction – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether evidence of complainant demonstrably unreliable – whether complainant’s memory demonstrably contaminated. APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Appeal – general principles – prosecution appeal – appeal against sentence – whether sentences manifestly inadequate – where primary judge erred in relation to maximum penalty – appeal allowed in part – remitted to primary judge for re-sentence. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 61(1) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) s 40F Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O(2) |
Cases Cited: | CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) (2015) 317 ALR 308 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Edwin v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 47 Gillard v The Queen (2013) 275 FLR 416 Klobucar v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 6 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 R v Duffy & Ors (2014) 297 FLR 359 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 |
Parties: | ACTCA 16 of 2014: Sarah Jane Thomson (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) ACTCA 24 of 2014: The Queen (Appellant) Sarah Jane Thomson (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel ACTCA 16 of 2014: Mr S Gill (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) ACTCA 24 of 2014: Mr J White SC (Appellant) Mr S Gill (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACTCA 16 of 2014: Pappas, j - attorney (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) ACTCA 24 of 2014: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Pappas, j - attorney (Respondent) | |
File Numbers: | ACTCA 16 of 2014; ACTCA 24 of 2014 |
Decisions under appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Refshauge J Date of Decision: 28 March 2014 (conviction) 6 May 2014 (sentence) Case Title: R v Thomson Citation: [2014] ACTSC 133 Court File Number: SCC 42 of 2012 |
MURRELL CJ AND ROSS J:
A jury found the appellant guilty of three offences that, between 1 January 2008 and 30 September 2008, she committed acts of indecency (sexual posing) in the presence of the complainant, a child under 10 years. The primary judge sentenced the appellant to an effective term of imprisonment of three years, suspended forthwith upon the appellant entering a four year good behaviour order.
The appellant appealed against the verdicts, alleging that they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The prosecution appealed against the sentences, asserting that they were manifestly inadequate and that the primary judge had erred in relation to the maximum available penalty.
The procedural history of the matter and the evidence given at the trial are…
Continue reading Thomson v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thomson v R [2015] ACTCA 16
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was such that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached the verdicts returned. This involved a close examination of the complainant's testimony and any factors that might have affected its reliability or the integrity of her memory.
The Court considered the principles governing appeals against conviction based on the safety and satisfactoriness of verdicts. It analysed the evidence in detail, assessing the grounds of appeal relating to the complainant's reliability and the alleged contamination of her memory. The Court ultimately found that the verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal against conviction.
The Court also considered a separate appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the primary judge had erred in relation to the maximum penalty applicable. The Court allowed the Crown's appeal in part, finding that the sentences were indeed inadequate, and remitted the matter to the primary judge for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [71]
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.