Legal Research
Cases
R v Matthews

R v Matthews

Case [2015] NSWSC 49 17 February 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matthews [2015] NSWSC 49
Hearing dates: 12 December 2014
Date of orders: 17 February 2015
Decision date: 17 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 19 September 2011 and expiring 18 September 2016 with an additional term of 2 years 6 months expiring 18 March 2019.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing – manslaughter – victim killed in fight – offender and deceased known to one another – violence involving alcohol – victim with undiagnosed aneurysm – aneurysm bursts during fight – offender on conditional liberty at time of fight with prohibition on drinking alcohol – general and specific deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Donaczy v R [2010] NSWCCA 143
Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105
Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 151
Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377; (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
R v Grenenger [1999] NSWSC 380
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v Matthews [2013] NSWSC 659
R v O’Hare [2003] NSWSC 652
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Plaintiff)
Adam James Matthews (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Watsons Solicitors & Barristers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/60340

Remarks on sentence

On 3 October 2014 the offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Scott Miller on 22 February 2011. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment.
Before dealing with the facts surrounding the death of the deceased it is necessary to say something about the history of the matter.
The offender was first charged with the murder of the deceased. The indictment was laid on 2 April 2013. The offender stood trial before Matthews AJ and a jury at a trial that commenced on 2 April 2013 and concluded on 16 April 2013. On that latter date the offender was found guilty of murder.
On 27 May 2013 the offender was sentenced by Matthews AJ to a non-parole period of 11 years commencing 19 September 2011 and expiring 18 September 2022 with a balance of term of five years expiring 18 September 2027: R v Matthews [2013] NSWSC 659.
An appeal against his conviction was brought to the Court of Criminal Appeal. On 8 August 2014 that Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, directed a verdict of acquittal on the charge of murder and directed a new trial on the charge of manslaughter: Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 151.
On 17 September 2014 the offender was indicted that he did unlawfully kill the deceased. At the first Arraignments List after that date on 3 October 2014 the offender…

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 Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2015] NSWSC 49
Case: [2015] NSWSC 49
Decision Date: 17 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Matthews, the High Court of Australia was presented with a case concerning the sentencing of an offender who had killed another man during a fight. The deceased was known to the offender and the fight occurred in the context of excessive alcohol consumption. The deceased had an undiagnosed aneurysm which ruptured during the fight, contributing to his death. Matthews was on conditional liberty at the time, with a condition prohibiting him from drinking alcohol. The primary issue for the Court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Matthews, considering the context of the offence and the circumstances leading to the deceased's death.

The legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the principles of sentencing in the context of manslaughter, particularly in relation to the offender's prior conduct, the role of specific and general deterrence, and the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. The Court had to consider the extent to which Matthews' previous breaches of his conditional liberty, including his consumption of alcohol, should influence the sentence. Additionally, the Court had to balance the need for general deterrence with the specific circumstances of this case, including the role of the deceased's medical condition.

The Court found that Matthews' previous breaches of his conditional liberty, particularly his consumption of alcohol, were significant aggravating factors. These actions demonstrated a disregard for the conditions of his release and highlighted the need for specific deterrence. The Court also emphasised the importance of general deterrence, considering the broader impact of sentencing on public safety and the need to discourage similar conduct. In weighing these factors, the Court concluded that the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence and the need to protect the community. The Court determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate, taking into account the offender's prior conduct and the circumstances of the offence.

The Court ordered that Matthews be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details of the sentence to be determined by the lower court. The sentence was to be consistent with the principles of general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to address the aggravating factors identified by the Court. The Court emphasised that the sentence should serve to both punish the offender and deter future similar conduct.

Orders