Thompson v R

The application for leave to appeal 31 I have above set out the applicant's encapsulation of the grounds of appeal. In the course of his lengthy written submissions the applicant set out or referred to significant and, indeed, extensive, factual matters. This includes reference to evidence he claims to have been given by him and others. The papers demonstrate that the applicant did not give evidence in the sentencing proceedings before Berman DCJ. The evidence to which he was referring was evidence that he gave in the trial before Dodd DCJ. This was not before Berman DCJ and cannot be used as part of the present proceedings. This Court must proceed to determine the application on the basis of the material that was before Berman DCJ. 32 In any event, the factual matters include references to evidence indicating when the applicant became aware of the nature of the criminal enterprise. Berman DCJ made appropriate findings of fact based upon the agreed statement of facts that had been put before him. Nothing has been advanced by way of challenge to those findings that could possibly succeed in establishing error of fact on the part of his Honour.

1. "discriminatory treatment/sentence" 33 I take this to be a ground raising issues of parity. The applicant put extensive written submissions concerning parity, including lengthy extracts from authority in this Court and the High Court. Much of this is, by reason of the applicant's lack of legal training, misdirected. 34 As I understand it, the nub of his argument in respect of parity concerns the transfers of Bateman and Bartle to Britain, where, it appears, parole arrangements are such that Bateman has derived, and Bartle might derive, a benefit in serving a lower proportion of the sentence in custody. 35 I am unable to see that this raises any issue of parity. Parity is concerned with sentencing like offenders to like punishments. Transfer of prisoners to other countries involves arrangements made between the Commonwealth of Australia and other countries. It is not a matter to which a sentencing judge can or should have regard. It is far removed from the sentencing process. Apart from anything else, whether or not one prisoner is to be transferred to serve a sentence in another country is something that will seldom, if ever, be known at the time of sentencing. Certainly, there was no reason for Berman DCJ to have been aware of what lay in the future for Bateman or Bartle. 36 There is no substance in this ground of appeal.