R v Mathieson - [2002] NSWCCA 97

CITATION: Regina v Mathieson [2002] NSWCCA 97

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60718/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 March 2002

PARTIES :

Crown - Applicant
Steven Robert Mathieson - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Simpson J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/71/0104

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nicholson DCJ

COUNSEL : D M L Woodburne (Crown/Appl)
H Dhanji (Resp)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown/Appl)
D J Humphreys (Resp)

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal - 6 offences - one count of escape lawful custody - 5 offences committed whilst unlawfully at large - non-parole period - findings of fact not supported by evidence - sentences in total manifestly inadequate - respondent resentenced

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSW CCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Pearce [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Cameron [2002] HCA 6; unreported, 14 February, 2002

DECISION: Ref para 33

60718/01

SHELLER JA
GROVE J
SIMPSON J
27 March 2002

REGINA v STEVEN ROBERT MATHIESON

Judgment

1 SHELLER JA: I agree with Simpson J.

2 GROVE J: I agree with Simpson J.

3 SIMPSON J: On 4 October 2001 the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court to an indictment containing six charges. On 16 October 2001 he was sentenced. The Crown now appeals against the asserted leniency of the sentences imposed. The charges and the head sentences imposed were:

1) escape lawful custody: fixed term of imprisonment of nine months, commencing 21 January 2002;

2) steal motor vehicle: imprisonment for 22 and a half months, commencing 6 August 2001;

3) robbery in company: imprisonment for 11 months, commencing 6 August 2002;

4) robbery in company: imprisonment for 18 months, commencing 6 August 2002;

5) assault with intent to rob whilst armed with offensive weapon: imprisonment for 13 months, commencing 6 August 2002;

6) break, enter and steal: imprisonment for 12 months, commencing 6 August 2002.

4 Having imposed these sentences His Honour then said:

“In respect of all offences other than the escape, I fix a non-parole period of 15 months commencing on 6 August 2001 and expiring on 5 November 2002.

I order you be released to parole on that date pursuant to conditions.”

His Honour then proceeded to specify the conditions of parole.

5 In August 2001 the respondent was an inmate in the Mannus Correctional Centre, a minimum security prison. He had been in that unit since 15 May 2001, serving an 18 month term of imprisonment, in respect of which he was entitled to release on parole on 16 January 2002. In order to gain admission to Mannus the respondent had signed an undertaking pledging that he would not escape or attempt to escape, and acknowledging the adverse consequences to his prison classification if…

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 Mathieson

Details

AGLC: R v Mathieson [2002] NSWCCA 97
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 97
Decision Date: 27 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case concerns a respondent who was convicted of six offences, including one count of escaping lawful custody and five offences committed while unlawfully at large. The respondent was initially sentenced by the County Court of Victoria. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the original sentencing was appropriate and whether the sentences imposed for the offences were commensurate with the gravity of the crimes.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original sentencing was adequate in light of the severity and nature of the crimes. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the findings of fact by the County Court were supported by the evidence and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentences, particularly the non-parole periods, did not reflect the seriousness of the respondent's criminal behaviour and the need to protect the community.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentencing was inadequate. The findings of fact by the County Court were not fully supported by the evidence, particularly in relation to the respondent's criminal history and the need for deterrence. The Court found that the non-parole periods imposed for the offences were manifestly inadequate and did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered the respondent to be resentenced, taking into account the need for an appropriate punishment and the protection of the community. The Court emphasised that the resentenced should adequately address the respondent's criminal conduct and the risks he posed to society.

Orders