JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, NETTLE, REDLICH, PRIEST JJA and LASRY AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 November 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 291
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lee James Matthews (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Maidment, 21 January 2013) The Queen v Tuyet Thi Vu (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Tinney, 9 December 2013) DPP v Sayeed Hashmi & Ors (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Dean, 2 September 2013)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Role of the Crown - Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Submission from counsel as to sentencing range – Whether a sentencing submission is a relevant consideration in sentencing – Whether receipt of a sentencing submission indicated sentencing judge took into account irrelevant consideration – Whether principle restricts defence submissions – Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323 applied – Application dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Drug trafficking – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Whether proper consideration given to applicant’s mental condition – Whether sentencing range given by the Crown resulted in sentencing error – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 applied – Application dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Drug trafficking - Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing range given by the Crown resulted in sentencing error – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Application dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Parity – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Whether relative non-parole period of co-offenders breached the principle of parity – Whether sentencing range given by the Crown resulted in sentencing error – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Application granted – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Mr Matthews	Mr T Kassimatis with Ms A S Ellis	David Barrese and Associates
For the Crown in Matthews	Mr R J Bromwich SC with Mr D J Lane	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For Ms Vu	Ms F Todd	Defteros Lawyers
For the Crown in Vu	Mr R J Bromwich SC with Mr D J Lane	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For Mr Hashmi	Mr R van de Wiel QC	Defteros Lawyers
For the Crown in Hashmi	Mr B Kissane with Ms A Hassan	Mr Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WARREN CJ

NETTLE JA
REDLICH JA:

In Barbaro v The Queen,[1] a majority of the High Court held that the Crown should not be asked to make and should not make a submission about the bounds of the available range of sentences. These appeals are primarily concerned with whether the sentencing discretion is vitiated where the prosecution provided the sentencing judge with such a range.
[1](2014) 305 ALR 323

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 Matthews v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matthews v The Queen [2014] VSCA 291
Case: [2014] VSCA 291
Decision Date: 19 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthews v The Queen involves an application for leave to appeal against a sentence handed down by the trial judge. The applicant, Matthews, is appealing the sentence for his involvement in drug trafficking activities. The application was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issues in this appeal revolve around whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered various factors, including the sentencing range provided by the Crown, the applicant's mental condition, and the principle of parity in sentencing. Specifically, the appeal questions whether the sentencing judge took into account irrelevant considerations, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the relative non-parole periods of co-offenders breached the principle of parity.

The court's analysis focused on the role of sentencing submissions by the Crown and the defence, as well as the applicability of relevant legal principles. In examining whether the sentencing range given by the Crown constituted an irrelevant consideration, the court considered the case of Barbaro v The Queen, which outlines the boundaries of appropriate sentencing submissions. The court found that the principle did not restrict defence submissions, as long as they remained within the confines of relevant considerations. Regarding the applicant's mental condition, the court considered whether proper consideration was given and concluded that no error had occurred. As for the sentence being manifestly excessive, the court examined the case of R v Verdins, but found that the sentence was not excessive. However, the court found that the sentencing range given by the Crown did not result in a sentencing error and that the relative non-parole periods of co-offenders did not breach the principle of parity. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed except for the parity issue.

The court granted leave to appeal only on the parity issue, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The court found that the principle of parity in sentencing had not been adequately addressed by the trial judge, resulting in an unjust outcome. The final orders of the court involved allowing the appeal in relation to the parity issue and dismissing it in all other respects.

Orders