Thomson v The King - [2025] VSCA 111

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0235

AIDAN THOMSON	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	LYONS and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 111
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 1813 (Judge Mullaly)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Multiple charges of aggravated burglary, theft of motor vehicles and related dishonesty offences – 17 prior aggravated burglaries – Total effective sentence of 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment – Non‑parole period of 2 years – Whether Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristic [2024] VSCA 251 correctly applied – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – No error of law in judge’s decision – Judge appropriately considered unique circumstances – Applicant’s numerous failed attempts to rehabilitate – Very serious offending – Re‑traumatised same victims – Sentence well within range – Proposed grounds have no merit – Leave to appeal refused.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristic [2024] VSCA 251, discussed.

Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Karam v The King [2024] VSCA 164; Lai v The King [2023] VSCA 151, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr R Bhattacharya
Respondent:		Mr R Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions

LYONS JA
T FORREST JA:

On 13 November 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to sixteen indictable and one summary offence. Following a plea in mitigation, the applicant was sentenced on that day as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Theft of motor vehicle[1]	10 years	12 months	1 month
2	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	12 months	1 month
3	Aggravated burglary[2]	25 years	28 months	Base
4	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	12 months	1 month
5	Burglary[3]	10 years	24 months	12 months
6	Theft[4]	10 years	3 months	N/A
7	Theft	10 years	1 month	N/A
8	Obtain financial advantage by deception[5]	10 years	1 month	N/A
9	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	9 months	1 month
10	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	18 months	6 months
11	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	12 months	1 month
12	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	12 months	1 month
13	Handling stolen goods[6]	15 years	1 month	N/A
14	Possess drug of dependence[7]	30 penalty units and/or 1 year imprisonment	$100 fine	Aggregate fine
15	Possess drug of dependence	30 penalty units and/or 1 year imprisonment	$100 fine	Aggregate fine
16	Possess drug of dependence	30 penalty units and/or 1 year imprisonment	$100 fine	Aggregate fine
Related Summary Offences
8	Trespass[8]	25 penalty units or 6 months	1 month	N/A
Total effective sentence:		4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment
Non-parole period:		2 years’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence detention declared:		498 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		6 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Charges 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11,…

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 Thomson v The King

Details

AGLC: Thomson v The King [2025] VSCA 111
Case: [2025] VSCA 111
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomson v The King, the applicant, Thomson, appealed against his sentence for multiple charges of aggravated burglary, theft of motor vehicles, and related dishonesty offences. Thomson had 17 prior convictions for aggravated burglaries and was sentenced to a total effective term of 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years. The Court of Appeal assessed whether the primary judge correctly applied the principles from Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristic [2024] VSCA 251 and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal addressed the applicant's contention that the primary judge did not correctly apply the principles from Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristic. The Court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles, and there was no error in the judge’s decision. The judge had appropriately considered the unique circumstances of the case, including Thomson’s numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation and the very serious nature of his offending, which involved re-traumatising the same victims. The Court also held that the sentence was well within the appropriate range for such offences.

Given the considerations above, the Court found that the proposed grounds for appeal had no merit. The sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the primary judge had exercised sound judicial discretion in determining the appropriate term of imprisonment and non-parole period. The Court therefore refused the applicant leave to appeal.

Orders