R v Matthew - [2017] ACTSC 413

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Matthew
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 413
Hearing Date:	20 February 2017
DecisionDate:	21 February 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [24]–[25]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – arson – fire damage to vehicle, garage and house – young female offender – no previous convictions – partially suspended sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 19 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 404(1)
Cases Cited:	R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Chloe Leh Matthew (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Swan (Crown) J De Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 96 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Chloe Matthew is charged with two charges. First, that on 2 September 2015, she caused damage to a vehicle; namely, a 2000 Subaru WRX belonging to Michael Wagner, by fire. Second, that she caused damage to a building by fire; namely, the garage at 1 Symers Street in Kambah. Each of these charges are contraventions of s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for such an offence is 15 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 1500 penalty units. The offender was charged on 22 November 2015. On 5 May 2016, the matter was committed for trial in the ACT Supreme Court. The indictment filed on 24 June 2016 included an additional charge of arson.

On 11 August 2016, she pleaded guilty to both counts, however indicated that the facts remained in dispute. The dispute at that stage as to who actually lit the accelerant in the garage. The matter was allocated for a disputed facts hearing commencing on 14 December 2016, but on that date an agreed set of facts was provided to the Court leading to the disputed facts hearing not proceeding. The plea of guilty was entered after committal to the Supreme Court. The Crown case appeared to be a strong one. The material before me indicates that the offender has not fully accepted responsibility for the offences and hence the plea of guilty does not indicate an acceptance of responsibility for the offending conduct. I will apply a discount of 10 per cent for the utilitarian value of the plea.

The offender has spent 57 days in custody prior to sentencing for these offences. Whilst 12 days of custody was also related to an arrest on unrelated charges, I was invited by the Crown to take those days into account in relation to these offences, and I will do so.

Facts

The offender was in a brief relationship with Mr Wagner between 8 July 2015 and 5 August 2015. When he ended the relationship, notifying the offender by text message on 1 September 2015, the offender was out drinking with friends. They went from the Transit Bar in Civic to a friend's house in Downer and then to the…

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 Matthew

Details

AGLC: R v Matthew [2017] ACTSC 413
Case: [2017] ACTSC 413
Decision Date: 21 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthew involved a criminal prosecution concerning an act of arson. The defendant, Matthew, was charged with causing significant fire damage to a vehicle, a garage, and a house. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Matthew, given the severity of the offence and his personal circumstances, including his young age and lack of prior convictions.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, given Matthew's background. The court also had to consider the statutory guidelines for sentencing, particularly those relating to arson and the impact of the crime on the victims and the community.

The court found that while the offence was serious, resulting in substantial damage, Matthew's youth and the absence of previous convictions were mitigating factors. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the victims, which included significant emotional and financial distress. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment was the most appropriate outcome. This decision provided a punitive response while allowing Matthew the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society without immediate incarceration.

The final orders of the court mandated a sentence of imprisonment for Matthew, to be partially suspended. This means that Matthew will serve part of his sentence in custody and the remainder on parole, subject to specific conditions. The court also ordered that Matthew participate in a rehabilitation program as part of his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24]–[25]

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.