Matia v The Queen; R v Matia - [2015] NSWCCA 79

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matia v R; R v Matia [2015] NSWCCA 79
Hearing dates: 27 October 2014
Decision date: 01 May 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [143]
Davies J at [148]
Decision:
In the conviction appeal, leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
In the Crown’s appeal against sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – offence of manslaughter – single punch by security guard during confrontation – identification of security guard – whether verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence – Crown case made up of eye witness evidence and CCTV footage – conviction appeal dismissed – CROWN APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – security guard’s actions to defend another – forceful punch not a reasonable response in the circumstances – Crown submissions inconsistent with findings of sentencing judge – appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 – s18(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Regina v Wang (NSWCCA, unreported, 11 February 1994)
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; 200 CLR 234
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lynn Matia – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Regina – Appellant Crown
Lynn Matia - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
M J Stratton SC/Ms N Mikhael – Applicant
Ms JA Girdham SC/Mr C Everson - Respondent
Solicitors:
Marsdens Law Group – Applicant
J Pheils, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

File Number(s): 2011/55406
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

14 February 2014

Before:

McClintock DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/55406

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

On 22 August 2013 the applicant was indicted before his Honour Judge McClintock SC at the District Court in Sydney on the following charge:

That he on 30 December 2010 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did feloniously slay Wilson Duque Castillo.

This offence is contrary to s18(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years.

The applicant pleaded not guilty and was tried before his Honour and a jury. The jury retired to consider their verdict on 12 September 2013 and on 17 September 2013 returned a verdict of guilty.
On 14 February 2014 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months commencing 14 February 2014 and a balance of term of 18 months.
The applicant has appealed against that conviction on the following grounds:

Ground 1 – The learned trial judge erred in leaving the alleged lies of the appellant as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Ground 2 – The verdict of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matia v The Queen; R v Matia and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWCCA 79
Decision Date: 01 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matia v The Queen, the appellant, Matia, was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria and appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The incident in question involved a confrontation between Matia and a security guard, during which Matia delivered a single punch to the guard, causing fatal injuries. The primary legal issue was whether the conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, with the Crown's case relying on eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage. A further issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, considering the security guard's actions were in defense of another person, and whether Matia's forceful punch was a reasonable response.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, comprising eyewitness accounts and CCTV footage, was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court was satisfied that the jury had properly considered the evidence and reached a conclusion that was open to them on the material before them. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that while the security guard's actions were in defense of another, the punch delivered by Matia was not a reasonable response in the circumstances. The Court also found that the Crown's submissions were inconsistent with the findings of the sentencing judge, who had taken into account various factors, including the lack of intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the conviction and sentence were dismissed, thereby upholding both the conviction of manslaughter and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders