R v Thompson [1997] QCA 94

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1997-04-16|Before: Pherson JA, Williams J, MacKenzie J

WILLIAMS J: The applicant was convicted of the offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years for that offence but was given credit for 479 days already spent in custody solely in relation to that offence. He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The offence in question occurred on 25 August 1995 and the complainant was his former wife, Ruth Ellen Thompson. It should be noted that he was charged with attempted murder but was acquitted of that offence by the jury. Apparently he had indicated to the prosecution willingness to plead to an offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the learned sentencing Judge took that into account in imposing the sentence she did.

It is necessary to say something, albeit briefly, about the background relationship between the applicant and the complainant. Their relationship commenced in about 1980; the complainant already had one daughter, Tiarne, and subsequently had another daughter, Stacey, by the applicant. Stacey was born in 1983. They married in 1986, and the marriage came to an end late in 1992. A domestic violence order was obtained by the complainant in August of 1993 and that provided for the applicant to have access to the two girls. He breached that order on 23 September 1993 and was fined for the breach. A new domestic violence order was made on 6 October 1993.

Then, on the evening of 7 January 1994, there was a further incident which constituted a breach of the order; there was an assault and deprivation of liberty. Other charges were laid but the applicant was acquitted of them.

He had been in custody for some 13 months awaiting trial on those charges and that was taken into account by the sentencing Judge. He was, on that occasion, sentenced to six months intensive correction order. He was still subject to that intensive correction order when the current offence occurred.

Apparently, the applicant was distressed by the fact that, to his mind, he had been denied access to his daughters and had not been informed as to their progress at school. He took steps to locate the residence where his former wife was residing with the girls. In breach of the domestic violence order, he went to that home on 25 August 1995. Various events occurred in the house which need not be recorded here. Then, he went in the motor vehicle with his ex-wife when she went to pick up the girls from school. The girls got in the vehicle and there was some driving around an area in the Palmwoods Nambour district.

The complainant stopped the vehicle in a public car park and there was some discussion between the complainant and the girls on the one hand and the accused on the other. That lead to the accused becoming very upset and he began punching the complainant and stabbing her with a screwdriver. He completely lost his temper. The complainant was stabbed a number of times; medical evidence suggested some three puncture wounds to her head and a puncture wound below her left breast. The assault was terminated by the intervention of bystanders who heard the complainant screaming.

It was in those circumstances that the learned sentencing Judge had to determine the appropriate sentence. As I said, she gave credit for the fact that he had indicated willingness to plead to the charge of which the jury found him guilty, but it was a relevant consideration that he was in breach of a domestic violence order and also subject to an intensive correction order at the time the incident occurred.

The learned sentencing Judge had various reports before her at the time of sentence; there was a report from a psychiatrist,

Dr Patrick Edwards, a report from a psychologist, Peter Peros, and a pre-sentence report from a community correctional officer. All of those reports, in broad terms, indicated that the applicant had an uncontrollable temper and constituted a continuing threat to the complainant.

Before the sentencing Judge, the applicant's counsel submitted that the appropriate sentencing range was from six to eight years. Both counsel for the accused and counsel for the prosecution referred in particular to the Court of Criminal Appeal decision in Queen and McIlroy, CA 146 of 1987, which would clearly support a sentence of seven years for an offence of this type.

Given all of the circumstances which I have outlined, in my view, the sentence was within the appropriate range. The applicant appeared before this Court today in person and addressed a number of issues to the Court. In my view, none of them would justify the Court interfering with the sentence which has been imposed. In my view, the application should be refused.

McPHERSON JA: The order is that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (14 paragraphs)

Parties