Legal Research
Cases
R v Mathew Aquilina

R v Mathew Aquilina

Case [2013] NSWSC 525 10 May 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mathew Aquilina [2013] NSWSC 525
Hearing dates: 27 - 29 August, 3 - 6 September, 10 - 13 September, 17 - 20 September, 24 - 26 September 2012; 30 November 2012; 1 March 2013; 27 March 2013
Decision date: 10 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1.The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 21 years imprisonment commencing on 5 January 2011 and ending on 4 January 2032, with an additional term of 7 years imprisonment, commencing on 5 January 2032, and ending on 4 January 2039.
2.The total term is one of 28 years imprisonment.
3.The offender will be eligible for parole on 5 January 2032 and his sentence will expire on 4 January 2039.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - where offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was convicted by a jury of murder - offender's participation in joint enterprise - where offender killed the deceased by strangulation - where offender a party to disposal and interference of the deceased's body on two occasions - where defence of provocation rejected by the jury - whether evidence supported a finding of provocation as a mitigating factor
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Cheung v R [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Regina - Crown
Mathew Aquilina - Offender
Representation:
Mr P Barnett SC - Crown
Ms T Evers - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW - Crown
Rice, More and Gibson Solicitors - Offender

File Number(s): 2011/3717
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

On 27 August 2012 Mathew Dean Aquilina ("the offender") was indicted for the murder of Adrian John Trevett ("the deceased"). The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder. The Crown did not accept the plea of manslaughter and the offender was tried on the count of murder jointly with his mother, Karen Dawson ("Dawson"). In the course of the trial, and in the circumstances which are more fully set out below, the offender raised the issue of provocation.

A third offender, David Comber ("Comber") pleaded guilty to the deceased's murder shortly before the trial commenced. Two other offenders, Deborah Grant ("Grant") and Kristine Weston ("Weston") previously pleaded guilty to offences of hindering the discovery of evidence, and hindering the apprehension of Comber, respectively.

On 26 September 2012 the jury found both Dawson and the offender guilty of the deceased's murder.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is one of life imprisonment pursuant to s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 ("the Act"). A standard non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed for the offence pursuant to s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999…

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 Mathew Aquilina

Details

AGLC: R v Mathew Aquilina [2013] NSWSC 525
Case: [2013] NSWSC 525
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mathew Aquilina involved the defendant, Mathew Aquilina, who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of a deceased individual, but was subsequently convicted of murder by a jury. Aquilina's involvement in the death included participating in a joint criminal enterprise, the act of strangulating the deceased, and being a party to the disposal and interference of the deceased's body on two separate occasions. The defence of provocation was rejected by the jury, and the central issue was whether the evidence presented supported a finding of provocation as a mitigating factor in the circumstances of the crime.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of Aquilina's participation in the joint criminal enterprise and whether his actions warranted a conviction for murder rather than manslaughter. This involved an analysis of the evidence and the application of legal principles regarding the nature of participation in joint criminal enterprises and the application of provocation as a mitigating factor. The court also had to consider the jury's rejection of the provocation defence and whether the evidence could support a different conclusion.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the case. It found that the evidence did not support a finding of provocation as a mitigating factor. The court considered the nature of Aquilina's participation in the joint criminal enterprise, his actions in strangulating the deceased, and his involvement in the disposal and interference of the deceased's body. The court concluded that the jury's rejection of the provocation defence was justified and that the evidence supported a conviction for murder rather than manslaughter.

The court's decision was that the evidence did not support a finding of provocation as a mitigating factor, and therefore the conviction for murder was upheld. The court's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the application of legal principles regarding joint criminal enterprises and the defence of provocation. The outcome of the case was that Aquilina's conviction for murder was affirmed, and no orders were made to alter the sentence.

Orders