AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
8
Court of Criminal Appeal 27 August 2025

R v Thompson

[2025] NSWCCA 133

HomicideDomestic & family violence

Citation: R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 27 August 2025
Judge(s): Bell CJ; Huggett J; Rigg J

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to murder under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for the brutal stabbing of his former domestic partner. The killing occurred in the victim's home, in the presence of her infant child, while the offender was on parole for prior offences against the same victim, namely assault, intimidation, and property destruction.

The sentencing judge imposed a total term of 22 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months, after applying a 10% discount for the guilty plea. The sentencing judge acknowledged the serious aggravating features but found the offender's moral culpability was diminished by significant mental health issues and severe deprivation in early childhood.

The Crown appealed on the single ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, arguing that general deterrence had not been sufficiently reflected. The Crown did not challenge the sentencing judge's findings on diminished moral culpability and did not allege patent error in the sentencing process.

  • Whether the sentence of 22 years and 6 months imprisonment for domestic violence murder was manifestly inadequate within the meaning of s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to general deterrence
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately address the offender's dangerousness
  • Whether, even if the sentence were manifestly inadequate, the Court should exercise its discretion under s 5D(1) to decline to allow the appeal

Decision

Bell CJ (Huggett and Rigg JJ agreeing) dismissed the appeal. The Court found the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and did not fall outside the range of sentences imposed in broadly comparable cases. Those comparable cases involved domestic homicides featuring frenzied attacks with knives or other weapons, accompanied by an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.

Where marginal differences existed between the sentence imposed and those in comparable cases, the Court found these were at least partially explicable by the offender's diminished moral culpability, a mitigating feature absent from many of the cases the Crown relied upon. The sentencing judge's careful and comprehensive reasons disclosed no departure from established principle.

The Court rejected the Crown's submission that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately reflect general deterrence or to account for the offender's dangerousness. Bell CJ found no inconsistency in the application of principle by the sentencing judge that could have produced an aberrantly low sentence. While Bell CJ noted he may personally have imposed a slightly higher sentence, that observation carried no weight provided the sentence actually imposed was not manifestly inadequate.

As an alternative basis for the outcome, the Court held that even if the sentence could have been characterised as manifestly inadequate, it would have exercised the discretion under s 5D(1) to refuse the appeal. This Court and the High Court have repeatedly provided guidance on sentencing for domestic violence offending, and the sentencing judge applied that guidance correctly. There was no occasion for further appellate guidance, nor any inconsistency in sentencing patterns requiring correction.

Orders Made

  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the Crown's appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a finding of manifest inadequacy requires more than a marginal difference from comparable sentences; the sentence must fall outside the range that could justly be imposed.
  • A sentencing judge's finding of diminished moral culpability, arising from mental health issues and childhood deprivation, can legitimately explain a sentence that sits at the lower end of the range for domestic violence murder, even without any challenge to that finding on appeal.
  • Under s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the Court retains a discretion to refuse a Crown appeal even where manifest inadequacy is established; the Court confirmed that discretion is appropriately exercised against intervention where no need for guidance exists and no sentencing inconsistency requires correction.
  • No error was established in the sentencing judge's treatment of general deterrence simply because the Crown contended it deserved greater weight; the sentencing judge explicitly addressed retribution, denunciation, and deterrence in the context of serious domestic violence offending.
  • The Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle, traced through High Court authority including Munda v Western Australia and The Queen v Kilic, that sentences for domestic violence offending must reflect the community's condemnation of such conduct and vindicate the human dignity of victims.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5D(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 10A, 25D(2)(b)
- Crimes (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 1982 (NSW)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (NSW)
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 6 Div 2
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 17

Cases
- R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
- Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
- CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
- Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
- McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12; (2021) 287 A Crim R 542
- McFarland v R [2021] NSWCCA 79
- Merkel v R [2019] NSWCCA 212
- R v Ahmed (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 105
- R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
- R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
- R v Tran [2024] NSWSC 116
- R v Hossain [2023] NSWSC 1621