Legal Research
Cases
Thompson v R

Thompson v R

Case [2020] NZCA 355 19 August 2020

Mitigating Circumstances

Brutality

Callousness

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA79/2019
[2020] NZCA 355

BETWEEN	COLIN JAMES THOMPSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	27 July 2020
Court:	French, Woolford and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	S W Hughes QC for Appellant M J Lillico and J M Irwin for Respondent
Judgment:	19 August 2020 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to adduce the report of Dr Lehany dated 20 February 2020 is granted.
BThe appeal is allowed to the extent that the minimum period of imprisonment imposed by the High Court of 13 years and two months’ imprisonment is reduced to 12 years and four months’ imprisonment. The sentence of life imprisonment is confirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Thompson pleaded guilty to the murder of his landlord Mr Riddle. He was sentenced in the High Court by Dobson J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years and two months.[1]
[1]R v Thompson [2019] NZHC 72 [High Court sentencing].
He now appeals his sentence primarily on the grounds that due to a delusional disorder, life imprisonment was manifestly unjust under s 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The facts of the murder

Mr Thompson and his wife rented a property on a farm owned by Mr Riddle. Mrs Thompson died in October 2017 following a lengthy illness. During the period of her illness, the relationship between Mr Riddle and Mr Thompson became fraught with arguments over unpaid rent and the state of the property. The situation escalated to the point where Mr Riddle who was in his late seventies felt threatened and would avoid face to face meetings with Mr Thompson.
Associates of Mr Thompson also became concerned after hearing Mr Thompson state on numerous occasions that he would shoot Mr Riddle if he continued to harass him. This resulted in one of the associates volunteering to be a facilitator or “go-between” to collect the rent.
The threats continued after Mrs Thompson died. In the weeks leading up to the murder, Mr Thompson told an associate that he had a gun ready and that if Mr Riddle kept harassing him he would shoot him without any hesitation. When another acquaintance commented that Mr Riddle had a right to expect the place to be tidy, Mr Thompson said he was going to shoot the mongrel anyway. On the day before the murder, he told someone else that he was going to shoot Mr Riddle.
On the day of the murder itself, 6 February 2018, Mr Riddle phoned Mr Thompson and spoke to him about the rent arrears. After going into town and withdrawing some money, Mr Thompson got back to Mr Riddle and invited him to the property to collect his rent. Mr Thompson then called two associates — one of whom was the go-between — and told them “I’ve been to the bank to get some more money to add…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Thompson v R [2020] NZCA 355
Case: [2020] NZCA 355
Decision Date: 19 August 2020 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colin James Thompson appeals against the sentence imposed by the High Court following his conviction for the murder of his landlord, Mr Riddle. Thompson was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and 2 months. The appeal was heard by French, Woolford and Dunningham JJ in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Thompson's appeal was primarily focused on the assertion that his delusional disorder rendered the life sentence manifestly unjust under s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Additionally, Thompson's legal team argued that the High Court erred in considering the murder as completely unprovoked, and that the severity of Thompson's delusional beliefs warranted a reduced sentence.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the threshold for finding a life sentence manifestly unjust was high. However, the Court took into account the additional psychiatric report provided by Dr Lehany, which suggested that while Thompson's delusional beliefs did not directly cause the murder, they did contribute to the escalation of anger and ultimately played a significant role in the offending. The Court also emphasised the importance of ensuring Thompson's delusional disorder was properly identified and treated to prevent any future risk to others. As a result, the Court of Appeal determined that the minimum period of imprisonment should be reduced from 13 years and 2 months to 12 years and 4 months.

The Court of Appeal granted the application to adduce the report of Dr Lehany dated 20 February 2020. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the minimum period of imprisonment was reduced to 12 years and 4 months. However, the sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed.

Orders