R v Matheson; ex parte - [1997] QCA 410

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 410
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 340 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Matheson; ex parte A-G]

THE QUEEN
v.
DAVID ALLAN MATHESON

Respondent

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

Davies J.A. de Jersey J. Muir J.

Judgment delivered 14 November 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - Attorney's appeal against sentence - respondent convicted of breaking, entering and stealing, housebreaking and arson - Attorney contended that sentence inadequate - whether a sentence of seven years imprisonment with a recommendation for eligibility for parole after three years of that term is manifestly inadequate.
R. v. Colombo C.A. No. 503 of 1994, delivered 4 April 1995 R. v. Hadden C.A. No. 198 of 1996, delivered 31 July 1996 R. v. Morris C.A. No. 17 of 1996, delivered 22 February 1996 R. v. Shearer C.A. No. 130 of 1996, delivered 5 June 1996 R. v. Sica C.A. No. 239 of 1993, delivered 8 October 1993 R. v. Smerdon C.A. No. 258 of 1996, delivered 12 November 1996 R. v. Toms C.A. No. 138 of 1996, delivered 21 June 1996 R. v. Zuvela C.A. No. 393 of 1995, delivered 23 November 1995
Counsel:	Mrs. L. Clare for the appellant Mrs. K. McGinness for the respondent
Solicitors:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Hearing Date:	28 October 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 14 November 1997

The respondent was convicted in the District Court after a trial on 7 August 1997 on one count of breaking, entering and stealing and one of arson, both on 4 October 1996. He was then convicted a few days later on his own plea on four counts of breaking, entering and stealing, four of stealing and two of house breaking between July 1995 and September 1996. On 12 August he was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each of the counts of breaking, entering and stealing and each of the counts of house breaking and 12 months imprisonment on the stealing count, all of those sentences to be served concurrently; and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment, cumulative upon those sentences, in respect of the arson count. The learned sentencing Judge then made a recommendation that the respondent be eligible for parole after serving three years of the sentences which he imposed. He also declared that a total of 312 days was imprisonment served under the sentences which he had imposed.

The respondent is 28 years of age having been born on 18 February 1969. He had been convicted in June 1996 of false pretences, wilful damage to property and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation for which he had been fined. These offences were committed during the period in which the offences the subject of his guilty pleas were committed. He had a dangerous driving conviction for which he had been fined in 1994. But he had no…

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 Matheson; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Matheson; ex parte [1997] QCA 410
Case: [1997] QCA 410
Decision Date: 14/11/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent in this matter, Matheson, was convicted of a series of serious criminal offences, including breaking and entering, stealing, housebreaking, and arson. The Attorney, acting on behalf of the Crown, appealed the sentence imposed by the lower court, contending that the sentence was inadequate given the severity of the crimes committed. The appeal was heard by a higher court, which was required to determine whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment, with a recommendation for eligibility for parole after three years, was indeed manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Matheson was so disproportionate to the gravity of his crimes as to be manifestly inadequate. The Attorney argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, which involved multiple instances of unlawful entry and theft, as well as the deliberate destruction of property by arson. The court had to weigh the appropriate considerations in sentencing, including deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community, against the particular circumstances of this case.

In its judgment, the court carefully considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the background and character of the offender, and the principles of sentencing. The court noted that while the offences were serious, they did not involve violence or harm to any person. The court also took into account Matheson's personal circumstances, including his age and the fact that he had no prior criminal history. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentence, with the recommendation for parole eligibility, appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence imposed on Matheson was dismissed, and the original sentence of seven years imprisonment with a recommendation for eligibility for parole after three years was upheld. The court affirmed the lower court's assessment of the appropriate sentence in this case.

Orders