R v Mathew John Ridgeway - [2012] NSWDC 53

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 53
Decision date: 01 February 2012
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence below revised on 7 February 2012 in R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 54.
For the offence of aggravated robbery a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment. For the offence of kidnapping, a sentence of 6 ½ years imprisonment. Total sentence of 7 ½ years. Single non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - purpose of sentence - deterrence - prevention of vigilantism - relevant factors - gravity of offence - serious offence of kidnapping - prior criminality - extensive criminal record - parity - co-offender no antecedents and diagnosed psychiatric condition - non-parole period - special circumstances - serving sentence in circumstances of isolation - sentencing procedure - sentencing guidelines - similar elements to guideline judgment of Regina v Henry.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 86(2)(a), 95(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 166
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mathew John RIDGEWAY (Accused)
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

File Number(s): DC 2011/85634

SENTENCE

I am sentencing a man who took exception to the behaviour of somebody else in the community. Rather than assisting in lawfully resolving what he saw to be inappropriate behaviour, the man acted to mete out his own form of punishment that he thought was appropriate. The man I am sentencing put the other man through what must have been a terrifying ordeal for some hours.

The man I am sentencing is Mathew John Ridgeway who is now 30 years old. As a result of what he did, he has been charged with 2 crimes.

One I will call aggravated kidnapping which is an offence against s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 20 years imprisonment to that crime.

The other is aggravated robbery which is an offence against s 95(1) of the Crimes Act and also carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. (If I referred to aggravated kidnapping, I withdraw that. It is kidnapping - formally known as detaining with intent to obtain an advantage.)

In addition, Mr Ridgeway has asked me to take into account, when I am sentencing him, another crime that he has pleaded guilty to. That is a crime of stealing a motorcar and it was committed the day after, or at about the same time as, the crimes that I am sentencing him for. He and the solicitor for the prosecutor have signed a document asking me to take that into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and I will take that into account and I sign the document accordingly.

It is important for a judge, in sentencing a person, to briefly set out what…

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 John Ridgeway

Details

AGLC: R v Mathew John Ridgeway [2012] NSWDC 53
Case: [2012] NSWDC 53
Decision Date: 01 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Mathew John Ridgeway, faced the court on charges of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. The case was heard and determined by the District Court of New South Wales. Ridgeway had been involved in the kidnapping and aggravated robbery of a victim, leading to a serious criminal prosecution.

The court needed to decide on the appropriate sentences for both offences, taking into account the relevant factors. This included the gravity of the offences, Ridgeway's extensive criminal history, and the circumstances of the crime. The court also considered the disparity in sentencing between Ridgeway and his co-offender, who had no prior criminal record and a diagnosed psychiatric condition. Additionally, the court assessed the need for deterrence and the prevention of vigilantism in imposing the sentences.

The court began by assessing the severity of the offences, noting that both kidnapping and aggravated robbery were serious crimes. Ridgeway's prior criminal history was given significant weight, as was the need for deterrence and prevention of vigilantism. The court also took into account the special circumstances of Ridgeway serving his sentence in isolation. After considering all these factors and comparing them to the guideline judgment in Regina v Henry, the court determined that the appropriate sentences were 5 ½ years for the aggravated robbery and 6 ½ years for the kidnapping, with a total sentence of 7 ½ years and a non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.

The court ordered that Ridgeway serve a sentence of 5 ½ years for the offence of aggravated robbery and 6 ½ years for the offence of kidnapping, with a total sentence of 7 ½ years. The non-parole period was set at 6 years and 3 months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of the gravity of the offences, Ridgeway's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and prevention of vigilantism.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence below revised on 7 February 2012 in R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 54.

For the offence of aggravated robbery a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment. For the offence of kidnapping, a sentence of 6 ½ years imprisonment. Total sentence of 7 ½ years. Single non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 53
Decision date:	01 February 2012
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence below revised on 7 February 2012 in R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 54. For the offence of aggravated robbery a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment. For the offence of kidnapping, a sentence of 6 ½ years imprisonment. Total sentence of 7 ½ years. Single non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - purpose of sentence - deterrence - prevention of vigilantism - relevant factors - gravity of offence - serious offence of kidnapping - prior criminality - extensive criminal record - parity - co-offender no antecedents and diagnosed psychiatric condition - non-parole period - special circumstances - serving sentence in circumstances of isolation - sentencing procedure - sentencing guidelines - similar elements to guideline judgment of Regina v Henry.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, s 86(2)(a), 95(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 166 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mathew John RIDGEWAY (Accused)
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)
File Number(s):	DC 2011/85634