Matovic v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0144

MATTHEW GEORGE MATOVIC	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 August 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 212
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 371 (Judge Pullen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – 13 indictable offences and two summary offences including rape, causing injury intentionally, common law assault, threat to kill, attempting to pervert the course of justice and firearms offences – Total effective sentence of 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years – Whether orders for cumulation and total effective sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced to total effective sentence of 18 years with non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person	--
For the Respondent	Mr D A Glynn	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KYROU JA
McLEISH JA:

Introduction and summary

On 19 February 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty to two summary charges and 13 charges on two indictments, as set out in the table below. On 2 April 2020, he was sentenced by a County Court judge as set out in that table:[1]
[1]DPP v Matovic [2020] VCC 371 (‘sentencing remarks’).

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

First indictment: H11950854A.1

1 Prohibited person possess firearm [s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996] 10 years 30 months 7 months

2 Conduct endangering persons [s 23 Crimes Act 1958] 5 years 18 months 8 months

3 Threat to kill [s 20 Crimes Act] 10 years 3 years 12 months

4 Causing injury intentionally [s 18 Crimes Act] 10 years 4 years 2 years

5 Common law assault [s 320 Crimes Act] 5 years 30 months 14 months

6 Threat to kill 10 years 18 months 10 months

7 Rape [s 38 Crimes Act] 25 years 12 years Base

8 Prohibited person possess firearm 10 years 14 months 5 months

9 Attempt to pervert the course of justice [s 320 Crimes Act] 25 years 18 months 8 months

10 Attempt to pervert the course of justice 25 years 10 months 5 months

Second indictment: H11950854B.1

1 Possess identification information [s 192C Crimes Act] 3 years 10 months Base

2 Prohibited person possess imitation firearm [s 5AB(2) Control of Weapons Act 1990] 10 years 8 months 4 months

3 Prohibited person possess imitation firearm 10 years 8 months 4 months

Summary charges

15 Cruelty to an animal [s 9(1)(c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986] 12 months 2 months 1 month

38 Possess prohibited weapon [s 5AA Control of Weapons Act] 2 years 2 months 1 month

Sentence on first indictment 19 years and 9 months’ imprisonment

Sentence on second indictment and summary charges 20 months’ imprisonment

Cumulation for sentence on second indictment and summary charges 9 months’ imprisonment

Total effective sentence 20 years and 6…

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 Matovic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matovic v The Queen [2021] VSCA 212
Case: [2021] VSCA 212
Decision Date: 5 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matovic v The Queen involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant, Matovic, who had been convicted of 13 indictable offences and two summary offences. These included serious charges such as rape, causing injury intentionally, common law assault, threat to kill, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and various firearms offences. The primary dispute before the court was whether the orders for the cumulation of sentences and the total effective sentence were manifestly excessive.

The court was tasked with determining whether the total effective sentence of 20 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years, was appropriate. It had to consider whether the sentence was excessive in the context of the totality of Matovic's offending and the principles of sentencing. The court reviewed the nature and circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. After thorough consideration, the court found that the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were indeed manifestly excessive.

In light of its findings, the court allowed the appeal and resentenced Matovic to a total effective sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 14 years. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the offending and do not exceed what is necessary for the purposes of justice. The final orders of the court reflected the adjusted sentence, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders