Matondo v The Queen

The applicant, Matondo, sought permission to appeal against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge following his conviction for four offences arising from a single incident. The sentencing judge had imposed a head sentence of four years, four months, and 25 days imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The applicant's sole ground for appeal was that the sentencing judge failed to consider his cooperation with the authorities and the resulting hardship he was likely to face in custody.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether there was any arguable merit in the applicant's proposed appeal against sentence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge erred by not adequately accounting for the applicant's cooperation and the anticipated difficulties he would encounter in prison due to that cooperation.

The Court of Appeal, in refusing the application for permission to appeal, found that there was no arguable merit in the proposed appeal. This indicates that the court was satisfied that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's cooperation and any associated hardship, when determining the sentence. The court applied the principle that an appeal against sentence will only succeed if there is a demonstrable error or if the sentence is demonstrably excessive or inadequate, which was not found to be the case here.