Legal Research
Cases
Matthew Soames v Regina

Matthew Soames v Regina

Case [2014] NSWCCA 158 15 August 2014

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matthew Soames v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 158
Hearing dates: 26 June 2014
Decision date: 15 August 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Beech-Jones J at [76]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - whether trial judge erred in not giving effect to findings of special circumstances - principle of totality - manifest excess and parity - principles discussed - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited: Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
Johnson v R [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v R [1988] 166 CLR 59
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25; (2004) 144 A Crim R 90
Sinkovich v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 90
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Wong v R [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Soames (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
A. Bellanto QC/D. Accoto (Applicant)
V. Lydiard (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
Anderson Boemi Lawyers (Applicant)
S. Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2011/191750 & 2011/259436
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-03-08 00:00:00

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/191750 & 2011/259436

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Rothman J.

ROTHMAN J: Matthew Soames, the applicant, applies for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by the District Court on 8 March 2013. The applicant pleaded guilty to two charges, one for knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985, and the second being for supply of a prohibited drug, also contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985.

For the first offence, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 3 years non-parole period, with a further 3 years. For the second offence, her Honour imposed 5 years non-parole period, with a further 4 years. The sentences were accumulated by 12 months, providing for an overall sentence of 6 years non-parole period and a further 4 years for which the applicant is eligible for parole.

Grounds of Appeal

The applicant relied on an initial version of the grounds of appeal (filed 2 October 2013), which grounds of appeal were supplemented at or just prior to the hearing, leave to file same being granted by the Court.

The initial grounds of appeal were:

(1) Her Honour…

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 Matthew Soames v Regina

Details

AGLC: Matthew Soames v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 158
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 158
Decision Date: 15 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matthew Soames against Regina, the appellant challenged the sentence imposed by the trial judge, contending that the judge had failed to adequately consider certain special circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty. The case was heard and determined by the court of appeal, which was tasked with evaluating the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the trial judge for the sentence imposed, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not appropriately weigh the mitigating factors, including the special circumstances, in arriving at the sentence.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to give sufficient effect to the findings of special circumstances during the sentencing process. The court was also required to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if the principles of totality and parity were appropriately applied in the sentencing process. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of these legal principles in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Upon reviewing the matter, the court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the special circumstances and the overall impact on the appellant's culpability and moral blameworthiness. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors presented. The appeal court also determined that the principles of totality and parity were appropriately applied, and that the sentence was not disproportionate when compared to similar cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's decision on sentencing.

Orders