R v Coghlan - [2019] VSC 543

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0315

THE QUEEN
v
MATTHEW WILLIAM COGHLAN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 June 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Coghlan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 543

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Pursuant to s 3A Crimes Act 1958 – Accused and co-offender lured victim to location intending armed robbery of him – Both offenders armed with knives – Victim and girlfriend both attacked and stabbed – Not clear which offender responsible for fatal wound – Deliberate stabbing but no murderous intent - Plea of guilty after already committed for trial in Supreme Court – Prior convictions but none for violence – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Standard sentence scheme – Mid-range of seriousness – Just punishment – Denunciation – General deterrence – Rehabilitation – Sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 26 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 years – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA, and 11A – Crimes Act 1958 s 3A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC and Ms C Foot	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Dr T Alexander	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Matthew William Coghlan, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Felk Repia on 30 April 2018, and have admitted prior convictions contained on a Criminal Record filed in this matter.

The particular charge of murder to which you pleaded guilty was laid under s 3A of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum penalty for murder, whether at common law or under s 3A, is life imprisonment.

Murder is a standard sentence offence with a standard sentence of 25 years.

Background

Mr Repia was born in New Zealand in 1982. He was 36 years old at the time of his death. He moved to Australia in 2015 and lived in various places throughout Victoria. At an early age, he was diagnosed with a hearing loss and used hearing aids. He also suffered from a condition called retinitis pigmentosa, a degenerative condition of the eyes which typically commences in childhood and progresses eventually to blindness. One of its features was night blindness. Victoria Meakins (‘Meakins’), the girlfriend of Mr Repia, described his hearing and his eyesight as ‘terrible’, with his eyesight particularly bad at night time.[1]
[1]Depositions 2500.

At the time of his death, Mr Repia was in a relationship with Meakins. They lived together in a house in Narre Warren.

You were born on 13 March 1990 and were hence 28 years old at the time of your crime. You are now 29.

Your co-offender, Daniel Treasure (‘Treasure’), was five years older than you.

Mr Repia did not know either you or Treasure. Meakins had met Treasure on a couple of occasions.…

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 R v Coghlan

Details

AGLC: R v Coghlan [2019] VSC 543
Case: [2019] VSC 543
Decision Date: 16 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Coghlan involved a plea of guilty to the offence of murder, where the accused had lured a victim, along with a co-offender, intending to commit an armed robbery. Both the accused and the co-offender were armed with knives and attacked the victim and the victim’s girlfriend, resulting in the death of the victim. It was unclear which offender delivered the fatal stab wound. The accused did not have a prior history of violent offending, and there was evidence of good prospects for rehabilitation. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, considering the various statutory provisions and principles of sentencing. Key issues included the relevance of the accused’s plea of guilty, the seriousness of the offence, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court needed to balance the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate punishment.

The court found the offence to be in the mid-range of seriousness due to the premeditated nature of the attack and the involvement of weapons. However, the court acknowledged the lack of murderous intent and the accused’s prospects for rehabilitation. The plea of guilty resulted in a discount to the otherwise appropriate sentence. The court sentenced the accused to 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The court noted that, had the accused not pleaded guilty, the sentence would have been 26 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years.

The final orders of the court included the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, reflecting the court’s consideration of all relevant factors under the statutory framework and sentencing principles.

Orders