Philip Lindsay Matthews v The Queen

PHILIP LINDSAY MATTHEWS
v
THE QUEEN
[2014] HCASL 47
S169/2013

The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Hoeben CJ at CL, Leeming JA and Beech-Jones J) dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted following a trial in the District Court of New South Wales of an offence involving the importation of a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor, pseudoephedrine[1]. On 23 January 2012 Tupman DCJ sentenced the applicant to a term of seven years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months.
[1]Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.11.
The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the applicant's various grounds of challenge to his conviction, concluding that the Crown case against him was "overwhelming"[2]. The Court found that the sentencing judge's reasons disclosed an error in sentencing principle. Nonetheless, the Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that no lesser sentence was warranted in law[3].
[2]Matthews v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 187 at [53].
[3]Matthews v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 187 at [203].
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the determination of the conviction and sentence appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Nothing filed in support of the application identifies an arguable ground of challenge to either determination. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
12 March 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Philip Lindsay Matthews, applied for special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, as determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Matthews was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales for the importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor, pseudoephedrine. Following his conviction, Tupman DCJ sentenced Matthews to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. Matthews' appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed, as the court found the Crown's case against him to be overwhelming and the sentencing judge's reasons to be sound, despite an error in sentencing principle. Matthews, who is unrepresented, filed his application for special leave to appeal under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The central legal issues that arose in this case were whether the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to dismiss Matthews' appeal against his conviction and sentence was correct, and if granting special leave to appeal would result in a sufficient prospect of success. The court had to determine whether there was an arguable ground of challenge to the Court of Criminal Appeal's determination of the conviction and sentence appeals. It was also necessary to assess whether the application met the requirements under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the determination of the conviction and sentence appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal. None of the filings in support of the application identified an arguable ground of challenge to either determination. The court concluded that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed Matthews' application for special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The court found that there was no arguable ground of challenge to the Court of Criminal Appeal's determination, and granting special leave to appeal would not result in a sufficient prospect of success. Consequently, the Registrar was instructed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established