MATTHEWS-RUDOLPH v The King

Case [2025] SASCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

MATTHEWS-RUDOLPH v THE KING

[2025] SASCA 60

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice Stanley)

5 June 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IN GENERAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

Appeal against conviction and sentence.

Following a trial by jury, the appellant was found guilty of recklessly causing serious harm contrary to s 23(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).

The offending arose out of an altercation between the appellant and complainant during which the appellant struck the complainant in the face while holding a glass of beer in his hand, causing her serious harm.

The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 11 months and 1 day, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The judge declined to suspend the appellant’s sentence.

The grounds concerning conviction relate to the treatment of the evidence of recklessness, self-defence, intoxication and the alternative offences (Grounds 2, 4, 5 and 6). The appellant also complains that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence (Ground 1).

The appellant seeks permission to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive (Grounds 1 and 6) and that the judge erred in failing to make proper allowance for the time spent in custody in fixing the non-parole period (Ground 2).

Held, per the Court, dismissing the appeal against conviction:

1.The judge did not err in her directions to the jury in relation to the evidence of recklessness, self-defence, intoxication and the alternative offences. In particular, the judge adequately addressed the issue of whether the appellant was aware of the glass in his hand when he deliberately swung his arm at the complainant, such that there was no realistic prospect of the jury overlooking its relevance.

2.The evidence justified a conclusion that the appellant was reckless as to causing serious harm. The verdict was not unreasonable.

Held, per the Court, allowing the appeal against sentence on Ground 2:

1.The complaint of manifest excess is not made out.

2.It is appropriate to set aside the sentence below and resentence the appellant on a basis which makes allowance for time served.

3.In resentencing the appellant, the head sentence and non-parole period identified by the sentencing judge were appropriate, but both should be reduced by 30 days for time spent in custody.

4.The appellant is resentenced to a head sentence of 2 years, 11 months and 1 days imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year, 5 months and 1 day, both backdated to commence on 12 December 2024.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

Continue reading MATTHEWS-RUDOLPH v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
MATTHEWS-RUDOLPH v The King [2025] SASCA 60
Case
[2025] SASCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mr. Matthews-Rudolph, for the offence of recklessly causing harm. The dispute arose from an altercation at a hotel where the appellant, while holding a glass of beer, swung his arm and struck the complainant, Ms. Saxby, in the face, causing her serious injuries. The central issue at trial was whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was aware of a substantial risk of serious harm resulting from his conduct and acted despite that risk.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict of guilt was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the appellant's state of mind at the time of the incident, specifically his awareness of the risk of harm, and to assess the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the circumstances of the offending and the appellant's personal background.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Livesey P, S Doyle and Stanley JJ, granted permission to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal on that ground. The court found that the jury was entitled to conclude that the appellant was reckless as to causing serious harm, even if he was not aware he was holding a glass. However, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing the non-parole period by 30 days to account for time already spent in custody. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the victim's injuries, which were described as life-changing, but also took into account the appellant's lack of prior criminal history, his remorse, and his efforts to address his alcohol consumption.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

We allow his appeal against sentence, and reduce his non-parole period by the 30 days spent in custody.Background On the evening of 23 July 2022, the appellant and the complainant, Ms Saxby, were at the Westland Hotel in Whyalla. Late in the evening, whilst in a crowded area of the hotel referred to as the smoking area, they were involved in an altercation. During the course of this altercation, the appellant swung his arm whilst holding a glass of beer. His arm struck Ms Saxby in the face, causing her immediately to fall to the ground. Ms Saxby sustained lacerations to her left eye and ear. It was not in dispute that she suffered serious harm as a result of the appellant’s action. Nor was it in dispute that the appellant deliberately swung his arm in striking Ms Saxby to the face. The primary issue in dispute at trial was whether it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the requisite state of mind to commit the charged act; that is, whether the prosecution could prove the appellant was reckless in that he was aware of a substantial risk that serious harm[1] would result from his conduct, but engaged in that conduct despite that risk and without justification. Related to this, there was a dispute as to whether the appellant was aware he was holding a glass at the moment he swung his arm.[1] Or, for the alternative offence of (aggravated) recklessly causing harm, a substantial risk of harm. The trial was a short one. The prosecution relied upon evidence from Ms Saxby, two additional women who were present at the hotel, and an investigating police officer. The prosecution also relied upon some agreed facts, photographs, CCTV footage from the hotel, and a record of the accused’s police interview. Ms Saxby’s evidence was that she was at the hotel catching up with friends, in the context of a farewell dinner and drinks. She and her friends had dinner in the beer garden from around 6.30 pm and then later in the evening moved to the outdoor smoking area. Ms Saxby said that she had not consumed much alcohol. Once in the smoking area, Ms Saxby and her friends were approached by the appellant, who introduced himself as ‘Vinnie’. The appellant told them where he worked, and that he was from New Zealand. Eventually, he was called away by one of his friends, and he left Ms Saxby and her friends. Ms Saxby and her friends returned to the table where they had had dinner. Later again, Ms Saxby and her friends returned to the smoking area. As she entered this area, Ms Saxby observed the appellant arguing with another male. Ms Saxby did not know what the appellant and the other man were arguing about. She noticed the appellant had a glass of beer in his hand. She approached the appellant in order to break up the argument or fight. She said to the appellant ‘come on, it’s not the time and place for a fight’, while raising her hands at chest level. The appellant immediately pushed Ms Saxby’s hands down with his left hand. She then raised her hands back up and asked the appellant ‘what was that for?’. The appellant pushed her arms down again. The male who had previously been arguing with the appellant walked away. Another male moved in between the appellant and Ms Saxby. This other male had his back to the appellant and was facing Ms Saxby.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

We would reject this ground of appeal.Conclusion on the conviction appeal For the reasons given, we would grant permission to appeal against conviction but dismiss the appeal. It is thus necessary to turn to the appeal against sentence.The sentence imposed The judge commenced her sentencing remarks by noting that the alternative offence of recklessly causing harm, of which the appellant was convicted, carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. Her Honour described the circumstances of the offending, as summarised earlier in these reasons. Her Honour explained that the appellant fell to be sentenced on the basis that whilst the jury accepted, probably because of his intoxication, that the appellant did not turn his mind to the glass in his hand, nevertheless he did turn his mind to, and was reckless as to, causing serious harm when he swung his arm as he did. In addressing the seriousness of the appellant’s offending, the judge accepted that he was affected by alcohol, and was in a crowded and somewhat chaotic environment. However, she considered that he had exhibited a total loss of self-control. She explained that the CCTV footage depicted absolutely no need for him to have acted as he did and that, on any assessment, this was serious offending. As to the appellant’s personal circumstances, he was 36 years of age at the time of sentence and had no criminal history. The appellant was born and raised in New Zealand. He is the youngest of three children. His father died tragically when he was young, and he was brought up by his mother and stepfather. After leaving school, he undertook an apprenticeship, before moving to Australia for work in his early twenties. Since being in Australia, he has had consistent employment, except for a period during COVID. He has a six-year-old child from a previous relationship who lives in Perth with the child’s mother. He is in a long-term relationship with his current partner, who has two children from a previous relationship. The judge noted that the appellant had earlier spent 30 days in custody for this offending. She said that since his release he had rarely drunk alcohol. He had acknowledged the role alcohol consumption played in his offending. He had recently been promoted to the position of superintendent, and was continuing to work to support his family. The appellant’s stepfather died prior to sentencing, and it was distressing for the appellant that he had not been able to attend his funeral given his bail conditions. The appellant retains the support of his former partner, who said that the appellant regretted the incident and had worked hard to change mentally and emotionally, and to continue to play an important role in their child’s life. The judge had the benefit of other letters of support which spoke favourably of the appellant. The judge addressed the victim’s injuries. As mentioned, not only did Ms Saxby experience excruciating pain and bleeding from her eye at the time of impact, but she was also required to have treatment for several lacerations in and around her eye. This has resulted in ongoing disfigurement and a reduction in function. The judge described the victim’s injuries as ongoing and life-changing. The victim had been playing squash at a state and national level, but has not been able to do so since she was injured. She was continuing to have issues with double vision and headaches. Her injuries as a result of the appellant’s actions had continued to impact her, and her relationship with her family, partner and friends. The compromise of her eyesight has meant that her hard work in getting to a position where she could compete at an elite level in sport was wasted. She had lost confidence, including in her safety. She suffers from nightmares. She had difficulty wearing make-up because of the irritation it causes to her scars and skin. Her employment had been interrupted by medical appointments, and she continues to suffer the indignity of people asking her what happened to her.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.