Push for Mackenzie's case to show courts how to punish DV killers

Lawyers argued Tyrone Thompson - who is considered so violent and unpredictable that he is housed at the state's high-risk management unit and has never had contact with another inmate - is too dangerous and poses too great a risk to be released back into the community at the conclusion of his sentence.

The state's highest court could use the case of R v Thompson to not only correct a "manifestly inadequate sentence" but provide guidance to sentencing judges about how domestic violence killers should be punished.

"We bring the appeal not only for the purpose of correcting this sentence, but this presents a broader opportunity in light of the prevalence of these type of offences to offer some guidance to sentencing courts," Crown prosecutor Monica Millward said.

Thompson had to be shackled due to fears he would smash up another audio-visual suite as he beamed into the Court of Criminal Appeal on Friday to hear prosecutors argue the sentence he received for the frenzied stabbing of Ms Anderson was so deficient it eroded public confidence in the justice system.

Thompson twice broke into Ms Anderson's home on March 25, 2022 before stabbing her 78 times with two knives.

He was on parole, on bail and there was an apprehended violence order in place prohibiting Thompson from having any contact with his ex-partner.

Justice Richard Weinstein later jailed Thompson for a maximum of 22 years and six months, with a non-parole period of 15 years and six months, a sentence that outraged Ms Anderson's family.

Under that sentence, he will first become eligible for parole in 2038, before his 39th birthday.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed in May that it would appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence.

It was welcome news for Ms Anderson's mother Tabitha Acret, who had labelled the sentence an "insult to women globally" and described its delivery as one of the worst days of her life.

The DPP rarely appeals against the inadequacy of a sentence. The appeal in Thompson's case is on a single ground: "that the sentence is manifestly inadequate".

Ms Millward on Friday outlined the horrific details of Ms Anderson's murder. She said that while the sentencing judge had made adequate findings in relation to the objective seriousness, those findings were not reflected in the sentence.

"It is unnecessary to exaggerate the criminality in this case," Ms Millward said "It speaks for itself."

Ms Millward said general deterrence, an important factor in domestic violence cases, was also not appropriately reflected in the jail term.

Prosecutors argued Thompson posed such a risk to the community at present and there was no basis to have confidence the situation would improve in the future.

Ms Millward said the CCA could use Thompson's case to not only correct the sentence, but send a message about how courts should punish domestic violence killers.

"There is, having regard to the prevalence of these types of offences, an opportunity to provide guidance to sentencing courts," Ms Millward said.

"And also to vindicate or reflect the harm done to the particular victim and to correct what we would submit is a sentence that is unfortunately apt to undermine public confidence, having regard to which it is manifestly inadequate."

In response, Thompson's barrister, Senior Public Defender Richard Wilson, SC, argued the case "did not stand out" compared to others and prosecutors "didn't get close to establishing manifest inadequacy".

"There is nothing about it which is likely to undermine public confidence in the justice system," Mr Wilson said.

Justice Weinstein had found Thompson was not psychotic at the time of the murder, had intended to kill Ms Anderson and had used his apology letter to try to shift some of the blame to the victim.

He also said the murder was "objectively serious" and was aggravated by a number of factors, including Thompson's criminal history, his recent release on parole, the AVO and the fact Ms Anderson was murdered in her own home.

Justice Weinstein said he had to weigh all of that against Thompson's youth, immaturity, background of deprivation and diagnoses of complex post-traumatic stress disorder and severe personality disorder. All of that reduced his moral culpability and would make his time in jail - where he has never had contact with another inmate - more onerous.

As a result, Justice Weinstein spared him life in jail and instead imposed a sentence that could see him released before his 40th birthday.

The three-judge panel of the CCA reserved its judgment on Friday.

If the appeal is successful, the CCA will re-sentence Thompson.

If the appeal is denied, Thompson could still remain behind bars after his non-parole period expires and even serve the entire 22 years and six months behind bars before he is then subjected to continuing detention orders, such is his level of danger and the risk he poses the community.