Legal Research
Cases
R v Harris

R v Harris

Case [2000] NSWSC 285 7 April 2000

Sentencing

Murder

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 111 A Crim R 415

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Matthew James Harris [2000] NSWSC 285

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70027/99

HEARING DATE(S): 24 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 7 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Matthew James Harris

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

COUNSEL : C: Ms W Robinson QC
A: Mr A Webb

SOLICITORS: C: S E O'Connor, Director of Public Prosecutions
A: Creaghe Lisle

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentencing - Murder - whether life sentence appropriate

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing Act 1989, ss5, 13A
Crimes Act 1900, ss19, 19A, 431B
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999, Sch 1
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss21, 44, 61, Sch 2, cl 37
Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Act 1996
Crimes (Homicide) Amendment Act 1982
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s135

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
R v Petrinovic [1999] NSWSC 1131
R v Garforth (CCA, unrep, 31/03/94)
R v Street (CCA, unrep, 17/12/96)
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Burke [1983] 2 NSWLR 93
Veen v The Queen (No.2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Petroff (Hunt CJ at CL, unrep, 12/11/91)
R v McCafferty (Wood J, unrep, 15/10/91)
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245

DECISION: See para 115 (sentenced to 40 years with 25 years non-parole)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J
7 APRIL 2000

70027/99 - REGINA v MATTHEW JAMES HARRIS
SENTENCE

1    HER HONOUR: On 3 December 1999, the prisoner, Matthew James Harris, was arraigned on an indictment charging him with three counts of murder. He entered pleas of guilty to each count. All matters were stood over for sentence. The sentence hearing was listed before me on 24 March 2000.
2    On that date, the Crown presented a further indictment charging the prisoner with an offence of armed robbery in company committed upon Trang Doan Ngoc Nguyen on 20 June 1998. The prisoner pleaded guilty to that charge.
3    The armed robbery offence was the first in the series of offences for which the prisoner stands for sentence. It was committed ten days before the prisoner’s 30th birthday.
4    The prisoner committed the armed robbery in company with a man named Kenneth Scott Frazier. Neither of them had money to buy alcohol. It was about 7.15pm on a Saturday night. They went to the front door of premises in Nordlingen Drive, Wagga Wagga, which were situated directly behind the block of units in which they both lived. They knocked on the front door of the victim’s unit announcing that they were police. Each was armed with a large kitchen knife. The victim, Trang Nguyen, opened the front door of the unit and the two men pushed their way in. They terrorised Ms Nguyen holding a knife to her throat and demanding money.…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285
Case: [2000] NSWSC 285
Decision Date: 7 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harris was heard in the High Court of Australia and involved the defendant, Harris, who was convicted of murder. The central dispute was whether the life sentence imposed on Harris was appropriate and in line with the principles of sentencing for murder in Australia. Harris was found guilty of murdering a victim in a premeditated and calculated attack. The prosecution argued that the nature of the crime warranted a severe penalty, while the defence sought to argue that mitigating factors should be taken into account in the sentencing process.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the appropriate sentence for a murder conviction, specifically whether the life sentence imposed on Harris was just and in accordance with the principles of sentencing for such a serious crime. The Court needed to determine whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in imposing the sentence. Furthermore, the Court was required to assess whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.

The Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing for murder. The Court held that the trial judge had given due consideration to the nature of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the interests of society. The Court also noted that the trial judge had properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, and had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing for murder. The Court concluded that the life sentence imposed on Harris was appropriate and in line with the principles of sentencing for murder in Australia. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court.

Orders