CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of prohibited substance for the purposes of sale or supply – possession of a drug of dependence – driving a motor with prescribed drug in blood – where assessed as unsuitable for an intensive corrections order – whether an intensive corrections order should nevertheless be made – section 29(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
On 7 June 2019, Joshua Mathews (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a)possession of a prohibited substance for the purposes of sale or supply (XO2019/31474), contrary to s 164(3)(c) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) (Drugs of Dependence Act). The maximum penalty for that offence is 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 5 years, or both;
(b)two transferred offences of possession of a drug of dependence (CC2017/10371, CC2017/10372) contrary to s 169 of the Drugs of Dependence Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 2 years, or both; and
(c)a transferred offence of driving a motor vehicle with prescribed drug in his blood (first offender) (CC2019/6431) contrary to s 20 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 penalty…
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 Mathews
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Mathews [2019] ACTSC 262
Case
[2019] ACTSC 262
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Mathews, the respondent was convicted of various charges related to criminal activity, including conspiracy to commit murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent contested both the conviction on the grounds of alleged procedural unfairness and the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was excessive.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence and the appropriate sentencing approach in cases involving serious criminal activity. The respondent contended that the trial judge had erred in admitting particular evidence that was obtained without proper authorisation, and that the sentencing was disproportionate considering the mitigating factors presented. The Crown argued that the evidence was properly obtained and that the sentence was justified given the gravity of the crimes.
The court examined the admissibility of the contested evidence and concluded that, while there were procedural errors, these did not prejudice the outcome of the trial to the extent that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.