Legal Research
Cases
R v Massey

R v Massey

Case [2022] ACTSC 3 18 January 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mental Health

Childhood Disadvantage

Rehabilitation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Massey
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 3
Hearing Date:	7 January 2022
Decision Date:	18 January 2022
Before:	Refshauge AJ

Decision:	1.	Matthew James Massey be convicted of burglary and be sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 14 October 2020 and expire on 13 April
2023.
2.	Matthew James Massey be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 14 October 2022 and expire on 13 October 2023.
3.	A non-parole period of one year and five months be set, to commence on 14 October 2020 and expire on 13 March 2022.
4.	Under s 67 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), the following conditions be recommended for the parole of Matthew James Massey:

a. That Matthew James Massey continue receiving anti-psychotic depot injections for as long as his treating psychiatrist considers that it remains
therapeutic; and

b.
That Matthew James Massey undertake intensive counselling and attendance at programs like SMART Recovery and Narcotics Anonymous or in a residential drug rehabilitation facility, for the period of his parole.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Burglary with Intent to Commit Violence – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Assessing Objective Seriousness – Childhood Disadvantage – Mental Health - Rehabilitation –
Recommended Parole Conditions
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 112 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 311 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 33, 46J, 63, 67 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) pt 7, ss 18, 88
Cases Cited:	AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; 198 CLR 111 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 Delaney v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 150; 230 A Crim R 581
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym)
[2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Director of Public Prosecutions v Lumber [2018] VCC 2264 Dobson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 19; 269 A Crim R 222 Douglas v The Queen [1995] 56 FCR 465 Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483 Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Ibbs v The Queen [1987] HCA 46; 163 CLR 447 Ling v Queensland Police Service [2012] QDC 253 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Antonovic [2016] ACTSC 77 R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304 R v Cuthbert (1967) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 272 R…

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 Massey

Details

AGLC: R v Massey [2022] ACTSC 3
Case: [2022] ACTSC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned the sentencing of Mathew James Massey, who had pleaded guilty to offences of burglary with intent to commit violence and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court was required to consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and determine the appropriate sentence, including a non-parole period and parole conditions. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the personal circumstances of the offender, and current sentencing practice. The court also took into account the offender's mental health and drug use issues, as well as his recent behaviour in custody and his wish for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced the offender to a total of two years and six months imprisonment for the burglary, and 12 months imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, to be partially concurrent. A non-parole period of one year and five months was set, and the court recommended that the offender continue receiving antipsychotic depot injections and undertake intensive drug and alcohol rehabilitation during his parole.

Orders