Legal Research
Cases
Matu v The Queen

Matu v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 23 15 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Matu v R [2019] NSWCCA 23
Hearing dates: 17 October 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2019
Decision date: 15 February 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [2];
Price J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted.
(2)   Appeal allowed.
(3)   The aggregate sentence passed in the District Court is confirmed, but is directed to commence on 25 May 2016. Accordingly, that sentence will comprise a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months, commencing on 25 May 2016 and expiring on 24 November 2020, and a balance term of 2 years 6 months, commencing on 25 November 2020 and expiring on 24 May 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – supply of 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine in not less than a large commercial quantity – supply of cocaine in not less than an indictable quantity – aggravating and mitigating factors – generic statement of principle – whether aggravation regarding financial reward taken into account – whether aggravation regarding a series of criminal acts taken into account – whether as a whole reasons are proper and adequate
CRIME – appeal against sentence – arithmetical error – commencement date of sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 (NSW), s 25
Cases Cited: Assam v R [2019] NSWCCA 12
DBW v R [2007] NSWCCA 236
Hudson v R [2016] NSWCCA 278
Kassoua v R [2017] NSWCCA 307
Lee v R [2016] NSWCCA 146
Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255
R v Mills [2005] NSWCCA 175; (2005) 154 A Crim R 40
Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lopeti Joshua Matu (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Paingakulam (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Swifte Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/161072
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 November 2017

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/161072

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Price J and with his Honour’s reasons.
HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Price J and the orders which he proposes.
PRICE J: Lopeti Joshua Matu (“Matu”) pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the following offences:

Count 1: between the 4th day of March 2016 and the 6th day of April 2016 did supply a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 2.417 kilograms of 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“the DMTA”). The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment and/or 5,000 penalty units. A standard non-parole period of 15 years has been prescribed.

Count 2: between the 21st day of March 2016 and the 7th day of April 2016 did supply 115.38 grams of cocaine, contrary to s 25(1) of the DMTA. This was more than the…

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 Matu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matu v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 23
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 23
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Matu, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple drug supply offences. The appellant was found guilty of supplying 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA, in a large commercial quantity, and cocaine in an indictable quantity. The appeal centred on the adequacy of the sentencing reasons provided by the trial judge, and whether certain aggravating factors were properly taken into account. Additionally, the appeal included a challenge to an arithmetical error in the calculation of the commencement date of the sentence.

The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge had adequately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence, and if the sentence imposed was appropriate. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the trial judge had properly accounted for the financial reward derived from the criminal activity and the series of criminal acts as aggravating factors. Furthermore, the appellant argued that there was an error in the calculation of the commencement date of the sentence, which affected the total length of the custodial term.

The court found that while the trial judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing reasons were not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that all relevant factors had been taken into account. The court noted that the financial reward derived from the criminal activity was an appropriate aggravating factor, but the trial judge had not sufficiently articulated how this factor influenced the sentence. Regarding the series of criminal acts, the court determined that the trial judge had not adequately explained the impact of this factor on the sentencing decision. The court also identified an arithmetical error in the calculation of the commencement date of the sentence, which resulted in an incorrect total custodial term. The court ordered a correction to the sentence to reflect the proper commencement date.

The court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the sentence, and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court was directed to provide more detailed reasons for the sentence, ensuring that all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, including the financial reward and series of criminal acts, were properly considered. Additionally, the court ordered that the sentence commence on the correct date as determined by the corrected arithmetical calculation.

Orders