29 November 2021, 1 December 2021, 8 December 2021
Date of orders:
10 February 2022
Decision date:
10 February 2022
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Before:
Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
[239]-[241]
Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Cause grievous bodily harm with intent – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company – Aggravated break and enter – Juvenile offender – Affected by drugs (Xanax) – Paradoxical side effect of Xanax – Assault on a public street – Assault by group of youths – Substantial harm or injury
Solicitors: Crown: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Defence: Mr M Stidwill
File Number(s):
2020/224974; 2021/040610
Publication restriction:
Prohibition on publication of the offender’s name or any matters that might identify him.
sentence
The offender in these proceedings was a 16-year-old youth at the time of his offending. He will in the course of my Remarks on sentence in court be referred to by his name as will other young offenders who I find it necessary to identify. However, in any published copy of these Remarks he and they will be referred to by pseudonyms. I remind members of the media that by virtue of the young person’s age and pursuant to the relevant statutory provisions, there is a prohibition on publication of either his name or matters that might identify him. That restriction also applies to the names of other young persons who were involved with the offending.
THE OFFENCES
On the evening of 31 July 2020, Matthew Cole was part of a group of approximately eight similarly-aged youths who…
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 Cole (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Matthew Cole (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 238
Case
[2022] NSWDC 238
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Matthew Cole was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the defendant, Matthew Cole, was charged with multiple offences including causing grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, and aggravated break and enter. The dispute centred on the circumstances of an assault on a public street, where Matthew Cole, alongside a group of youths, inflicted substantial harm on the victim. The case also considered the defendant's state of intoxication, specifically his use of Xanax, which reportedly had a paradoxical effect, exacerbating his aggressive behaviour.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were the extent of Matthew Cole's culpability given his impaired state, the nature of the assault, and whether the attack could be classified as an aggravated offence due to the involvement of multiple assailants and the use of a weapon. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentencing given the defendant's youth and the mitigating factors related to his drug use.
In determining the case, the court meticulously examined the evidence surrounding the assault, including witness testimonies, medical reports on the victim's injuries, and expert opinions on the effects of Xanax. The court acknowledged the defendant's drug-induced state but emphasised the severity of the assault and its impact on the victim. The court ruled that despite the mitigating factors, the defendant's actions constituted a serious breach of public order and warranted substantial punishment. Consequently, Matthew Cole was found guilty on all charges and sentenced accordingly.
The court ordered Matthew Cole to serve a custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offences committed. The sentence was designed to ensure public safety, provide retribution for the victim, and offer a pathway for rehabilitation, considering the defendant's age and circumstances.