Thornton v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 164

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Thornton v R [2007] NSWCCA 164

HEARING DATE(S): 30 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA; Latham J; Fullerton J

DECISION: (a) Appeal against conviction dismissed; (b) Grant leave to appeal against sentence; (c) Appeal against sentence allowed in part; (d) Quash the sentence imposed on Count 3 and in lieu impose a sentence of 10 years 6 months imprisonment to date from 14 March 2007, with a non-parole period of 7 years, expiring 13 March 2014. The appellant is eligible for release to parole on 14 March 2014

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURIES - Verdict - Whether inconsistent findings on chargers relating to simultaneous acts are unreasonable or unsupportable - Where "something additional" to complainant's evidence available for one charge but not the other - SENTENCE - "Special Cricumstances" - Principle of totality

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v Romano [2004] NSWCCA 380

PARTIES: Ronald James Thornton
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/584

COUNSEL: A: J Conomos
R: W Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: A: McGowan Lawyers
R: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecution)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 03/21/3160

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 10/3/05

CCAP 2006/584

TOBIAS JA
LATHAM J
FULLERTON J
Thursday 21 June 2007

RONALD JAMES THORNTON v REGINA

Judgment

1 THE COURT: On 7 March 2005 the appellant was indicted before his Honour Judge Goldring and a jury of 12 in the Campbelltown District Court on the following charges relating to offences committed in the early hours of 11 January 2003:

(a) One count of enter dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely, sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 111(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 1);

(b) Fourteen counts of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 2, 4-10, 12-17);

(c) One count of attempt to choke with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely, sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 37 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 3);

(d) One count of attempt sexual intercourse without consent contrary to ss 61I and 344A of the Crimes Act 900 (Count 11); and

(e) One count of indecent assault contrary to s 61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 18).

2 The appellant pleaded not guilty to each count. On 14 March 2005 the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts other than Counts 5, 7, 10 and 14, all of which charged the appellant with sexual intercourse without…

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 Thornton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Thornton v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 164
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 164
Decision Date: 21 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thornton versus The Queen, the High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the consistency of jury verdicts in relation to simultaneous criminal acts. The appellant, Thornton, was convicted of various charges including aggravated sexual assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and deprivation of liberty. The appellant contested the jury's verdicts, asserting that the findings on certain charges were inconsistent and unreasonable, particularly in light of the differing availability of corroborative evidence. The court was required to determine whether the inconsistencies in the jury's findings rendered them unreasonable or unsupportable.

The court addressed the legal issue of whether the inconsistencies in the jury's verdicts were such that they could not be sustained. The appellant argued that the jury's findings on certain charges were unreasonable because there was corroborative evidence supporting one charge but not the others. The court examined the principle of consistency in jury verdicts and considered whether the lack of corroborative evidence for some charges could justify differing conclusions on simultaneous acts. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent or unreasonable, as the jury could reasonably conclude that different charges required different levels of proof.

The High Court found that the jury's verdicts were consistent and reasonable, despite the differing availability of corroborative evidence. The court held that the jury was entitled to weigh the evidence differently for each charge and that the lack of corroborative evidence for some charges did not render the verdicts unreasonable. The court also considered the principle of totality in sentencing, which requires that the totality of the offender's criminal conduct be taken into account. The court determined that the appellant's sentence was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

Orders