R v Cole

Case [2025] NSWDC 270 18 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cole [2025] NSWDC 270
Hearing dates: 4 April 2025, 29 May 2025, 18 July 2025
Date of orders: 18 July 2025
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [119]–[124].

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – driving at a dangerous speed occasioning death – victim impact statements – whether appropriate to treat harm to deceased’s family members as an aspect of harm to the community – significance of offender’s asserted childhood sexual abuse – significance of traits of PTSD after offending – offender’s injuries from collision as extra-curial punishment

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 30E
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), ss 111, 205

Cases Cited:
Brooks v Reg [2009] NSWCCA 265
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Elphick v R [2021] NSWCCA 167
Green (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 16
KerrvR [2016] NSWCCA 218
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
R v Dale [2025] NSWDC 22
R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125
R v Errington [2005] NSWCCA 348
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Whybrow [2008] NSWCCA 270
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36
Rummukainen v R [2020] NSWCCA 187
Sheiles v R [2018] NSWCCA 285
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mr Mathew James Cole (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Porter (Crown)
Mr M Higgins (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Boyd Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/00086830
Publication restriction: Nil.

Sentencing remarks

Introduction

Mr Mathew James Cole (also known as ‘Matthew Webb’), the offender, is before the Court for sentencing following his plea of guilty to a charge (seq 5) that on 16 October 2023 at Bevendale, he drove at a dangerous speed occasioning death of another person, Lynn Keyworth, contrary to s 52A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. The offence also carries an automatic period of disqualification.
There are certain remarks I wish to make at the outset. First, for those not familiar with the criminal justice system, it is important to emphasise that sentencing by individual judges, although discretionary, is not at large. Sentencing judges are constrained to apply the law. Specifically, they are constrained by statute made by the New South Wales Parliament and authoritative interpretation of statute by appellate courts. Secondly, and reinforcing the first point, fundamentally there is a maximum penalty that sentencing judges can impose. This represents Parliament’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence. Thirdly, there are also a variety of sentencing considerations which can pull in different directions. They relate not only to the objective circumstances in which the offending occurred but also concern matters that are personal to the offender. Fourthly, the offence for which…

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 Cole

Details

AGLC: R v Cole [2025] NSWDC 270
Case: [2025] NSWDC 270
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cole, the defendant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's actions. The court was required to weigh various factors, including the impact of the offence on the deceased's family, the defendant's background of childhood sexual abuse, and the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms that developed after the offence.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of sentencing principles concerning dangerous driving offences. The court had to determine whether the harm caused to the deceased's family members could be considered an aspect of harm to the broader community. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of the defendant's traumatic past and subsequent PTSD in the sentencing process. The court also had to address whether the injuries the defendant sustained during the collision should be treated as an additional form of punishment.

The court held that the harm to the deceased's family members could indeed be considered part of the harm to the community, thus warranting a higher sentence. However, it found that the defendant's background and PTSD symptoms, while mitigating factors, did not sufficiently outweigh the gravity of the offence. The injuries the defendant suffered during the collision were acknowledged but not deemed sufficient to serve as extra-curial punishment. The court ultimately determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the community, and the defendant's mitigating circumstances. The specific sentence and orders were detailed in paragraphs [119] to [124] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [119]–[124].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Cole [2025] NSWDC 270

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

RG v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 36 Para 72

…r’s history of childhood sexual abuse reduces moral culpability was closely considered by Yehia J (Davies J and Lonergan J both agreeing) in RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36. At [77], her Honour noted that it is unnecessary to be too technical in determining how childhood sexual abuse might reduce an offender’s culpability.…
Green (a pseudonym) v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 16 Para 86

…basis for augmenting the discount already given to the guilty plea on account of other subjective factors, such as remorse: Green (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 16 at [37]–[39].…
R v Choi
[2025] NSWDC 22 Para 2

…l justice system can never really provide a salve to those who feel wounded by her death, since as Judge Anderson SC recently commented in R v Dale [2025] NSWDC 22 at [3]:…
R v Eaton
[2023] NSWCCA 125 Para 26

…ression “moral culpability” have since been taken to mean references to the objective criminality of the offence: R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125 at [56].…
Elphick v R
[2021] NSWCCA 167 Para 33

…ee a vehicle because the offender did not look properly and assess oncoming traffic will not constitute “momentary inattention” ( Elphick v R [2021] NSWCCA 167 at [24]–[25]). On the other hand, an offender’s moral culpability may encompass consideration of the presence and effect of any disability or impairment the…
Rummukainen v The Queen
[2020] NSWCCA 187 Para 33

…compass consideration of the presence and effect of any disability or impairment the offender labours under at the time ( Rummukainen v R [2020] NSWCCA 187 at [26]).…
Moodie v R
[2020] NSWCCA 160 Para 26

…Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“ CSP Act ”) and must be taken into account on sentence ( Whyte at [32]–[67]; Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 at [24]); albeit as a “check or sounding board” ( Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 (“ Kerr ”) at [96]). It is to be understood that references in Whyte to the expression…
Sheiles v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 285 Para 50

…members. It is enough to engage the provision if the offender could foresee that death could result and aware of its likely effect: Sheiles v R [2018] NSWCCA 285 at [40]–[42].…
Kerr v R
[2016] NSWCCA 218 Para 26

…o account on sentence ( Whyte at [32]–[67]; Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 at [24]); albeit as a “check or sounding board” ( Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 (“ Kerr ”) at [96]). It is to be understood that references in Whyte to the expression “moral culpability” have since been taken to mean references to the objective cr…
R v Halloun
[2014] NSWSC 1705 Para 49

…The Crown noted that the legislative predecessor to s 30E(3) was s 28(4) of the same legislation. About that former provision, in R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705 at [46] McCallum J (as the Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory then was) identified as the purpose of the provision to enable the evidence of f…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 74

…The offender’s Counsel invoked principles from DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 at [177], including that the existence of a mental illness might reduce an offender’s moral culpability, mental illness may make him an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence, that a custodial sentence may weigh more heavil…
Brooks v Regina
[2009] NSWCCA 265 Para 90

…time he has spent, and will spend, in custody is more onerous than it would otherwise have been: R v Whybrow [2008] NSWCCA 270 at [25]; Brooks v Reg [2009] NSWCCA 265 at [32].…
Whybrow v R
[2008] NSWCCA 270 Para 90

…d physical health and has meant that the time he has spent, and will spend, in custody is more onerous than it would otherwise have been: R v Whybrow [2008] NSWCCA 270 at [25]; Brooks v Reg [2009] NSWCCA 265 at [32].…
R v Whyte
[2006] NSWCCA 75 Para 26

…In R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 (“ Whyte ”), the Court of Criminal Appeal issued a ‘guideline judgment’ in relation to s 52A. The guideline judgment has statutory force because of Pt 3, Div 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“ CSP Act ”) and must be taken into account on sentence ( Whyte at [32]–[…
R v Errington
[2005] NSWCCA 348 Para 32

…d as ‘abandoning responsibility’ on the other, as if they represented two poles of a spectrum. This has been deprecated ( R v Errington [2005] NSWCCA 348 at [27]). There are different shades of moral culpability in different circumstances.…
R v Whyte
[2002] NSWCCA 343 Para 26

…In R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 (“ Whyte ”), the Court of Criminal Appeal issued a ‘guideline judgment’ in relation to s 52A. The guideline judgment has statutory force because of Pt 3, Div 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“ CSP Act ”) and must be taken into account on sentence ( Whyte at [32…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 104

…ierarchy amongst these purposes. Some of them overlap. As I remarked earlier, sometimes they point in different directions: Veen v The Queen (No. 2 ) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 476.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A, 30E, 3A 4 mentions (from Para 26)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
111, 205 3 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
52A(1)(b) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 61)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Cole [2025] NSWDC 270
Hearing dates:	4 April 2025, 29 May 2025, 18 July 2025
Date of orders:	18 July 2025
Decision date:	18 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [119]–[124].
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentencing – driving at a dangerous speed occasioning death – victim impact statements – whether appropriate to treat harm to deceased’s family members as an aspect of harm to the community – significance of offender’s asserted childhood sexual abuse – significance of traits of PTSD after offending – offender’s injuries from collision as extra-curial punishment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 30E Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), ss 111, 205
Cases Cited:	Brooks v Reg [2009] NSWCCA 265 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Elphick v R [2021] NSWCCA 167 Green (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 16 KerrvR [2016] NSWCCA 218 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 R v Dale [2025] NSWDC 22 R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125 R v Errington [2005] NSWCCA 348 R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705 R v Whybrow [2008] NSWCCA 270 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36 Rummukainen v R [2020] NSWCCA 187 Sheiles v R [2018] NSWCCA 285 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mr Mathew James Cole (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Porter (Crown) Mr M Higgins (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Boyd Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/00086830
Publication restriction:	Nil.