Matheson v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 108

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matheson v R [2015] NSWCCA 108
Hearing dates: 28 April 2015
Decision date: 22 May 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Hall J at [59]
McCallum J at [60]
Decision:
An extension of time for the application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
Leave is granted to appeal against sentence and the appeal is allowed.
The sentence imposed by Mathews AJ on 28 April 2006 is quashed and in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, and a balance of term of 7 years. The non-parole period is to commence on 19 May 2004 and expire on 18 May 2022, with the balance of term to expire on 18 May 2029.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – murder – whether “Muldrock error” had occurred – offender sentenced in April 2006 – mental illness issues – disagreement between psychiatrists – an extension of time granted – “Muldrock error” established – whether lesser sentence warranted in law – application of s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – appeal allowed – on re-sentence no change to non-parole period but head sentence reduced.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – s 6(3)
Cases Cited: Abdul v R [2013] NSWCCA 247
Achurch v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 117; 84 NSWLR 328
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 313 ALR 451
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Di Cianni and Pintabona [2013] NSWSC 1328
R v Lane [2013] NSWSC 1808
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Matheson – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
C Bruce SC – Applicant
S Dowling SC – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2005/2831
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

28 April 2006

Before:

Mathews AJ

File Number(s):

2005/2831

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

On 9 December 2005 the applicant was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Lyndsay Van Blanken. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 20 years.

On 28 April 2006 the applicant was sentenced by Mathews AJ to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, commencing 19 May 2004, with a balance of term of 9 years.
The applicant seeks an extension of time for leave to appeal from sentence on the following grounds:

Ground 1 – Her Honour’s sentencing discretion miscarried by reason of her:

(a) Adopting a two stage approach to sentencing; and
(b) Giving determinative significance to the standard non-parole period contrary to the principles identified in Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120.

Factual background

The victim was born in August 1985 and was a little over 18…

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 Matheson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matheson v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 108
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 108
Decision Date: 22 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matheson v The Queen involved an appeal against a sentence imposed for a murder conviction. The appellant had been sentenced in April 2006, and the appeal centred on whether the sentencing judge had made an error similar to that identified in the case of Muldrock. This error, commonly referred to as the "Muldrock error", concerns the application of mitigating factors related to mental health issues during sentencing. The central dispute was whether such an error had occurred and, if so, whether it warranted a reduction in the appellant's sentence under section 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

The legal issues before the court included determining if the "Muldrock error" had indeed occurred and if such an error warranted a lesser sentence in this case. The court also had to consider the impact of differing psychiatric opinions regarding the appellant's mental health at the time of the offence. The appellant's legal team argued that the sentencing judge had failed to appropriately consider the mitigating effects of the appellant's mental illness, while the Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate and that no error had been made. The court had to weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to reach a decision.

The court found that the "Muldrock error" had indeed occurred, acknowledging the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider the appellant's mental health issues. The court found that the mitigating effects of the appellant's mental illness warranted a reconsideration of the sentence. Under section 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, the court was empowered to adjust the sentence if it was satisfied that an error had been made and that a lesser sentence was warranted. The court decided that while the non-parole period should remain unchanged, a reduction in the head sentence was appropriate. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the sentence was re-imposed with a reduced head sentence.

The final orders of the court included maintaining the non-parole period as originally determined but reducing the head sentence of the appellant. The court's decision highlighted the importance of correctly applying mitigating factors related to mental health during sentencing and reinforced the principle that errors of this nature can result in a re-sentencing. The outcome underscored the necessity for sentencing judges to thoroughly consider all mitigating factors, particularly those related to mental health, to ensure justice is appropriately served.

Orders