Legal Research
Cases
Matheas v The Queen

Matheas v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 330 15 November 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0222

CHRISTOS MATHEAS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, TATE and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 November 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 330
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 1521 (Judge Misso)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – One charge of rape – Not guilty plea – Serious sexual offender - Sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment – Cumulation of six years on earlier sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for three charges of rape – New total effective sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment – New non-parole period of 12 years – Whether manifestly excessive – Totality – Whether inconsistent with current sentencing practice – Whether more severe than necessary for the protection of the community – Extensive and troubling history of violent offences – R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452, Gordon (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343, Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Bales [2015] VSCA 261, discussed – Appeal dismissed – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 6D, 6E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr N J Goodfellow	Balmer & Associates
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Tate JA. I would make the orders which her Honour proposes, for the reasons which she gives.

TATE JA:

Introduction and summary

The appellant, Christos Matheas (‘Matheas’), appeals[1] against a sentence imposed by Judge Misso in the County Court on 7 October 2016[2] after he was found guilty by a jury on 20 July 2016 of one charge of rape contrary to s 38 of the Crimes Act 1958. That offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. The judge sentenced Matheas as a serious sexual offender to be imprisoned for eight years, and declared that six years of that sentence were to be served cumulatively on a sentence already being served by him for three previous convictions for rape (‘the first sentence’). Matheas was eligible to be treated as a ‘serious sexual offender’ because he had been convicted of two or more sexual offences for each of which he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.[3] The first sentence, imposed by Judge L Bourke in the County Court on 10 June 2016, also following conviction by a jury, was for a total effective term of ten years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years.[4] Matheas was sentenced by Judge Misso on 7 October 2016 to a total effective sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment with a new non-parole period of 12 years. He became a registered sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 with a reporting period for life:

[1]Matheas was given leave to appeal against sentence by Priest JA on 20 February 2017.

[2]DPP v Matheas [2016]…

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 Matheas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matheas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 330
Case: [2017] VSCA 330
Decision Date: 15 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Matheas, was convicted of a single charge of rape, and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He had previously been sentenced to ten years for three charges of rape. The combined effect of these sentences was a total of sixteen years, with a non-parole period of twelve years. Matheas appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive, inconsistent with current sentencing practice, and more severe than necessary for the protection of the community. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal, which reviewed the relevant sentencing principles and the history of the offender's violent crimes.

The court considered whether the sentence was excessive by examining the totality of the offender's criminal history and the severity of the current offence. The court also examined whether the sentence was inconsistent with current sentencing practice and if it was more severe than necessary for the protection of the community. The court referred to a number of cases to assist in its analysis, including R H McL v The Queen, Gordon (a pseudonym) v The Queen, and Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Bales. The court noted that the offender had an extensive history of violent offences and that the sentence imposed was not inconsistent with current sentencing practice.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, nor was it more severe than necessary for the protection of the community. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the offender's extensive history of violent offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court of appeal confirmed the original sentence of sixteen years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of twelve years. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was consistent with current sentencing practice. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders