Legal Research
Cases
R v Matthews

R v Matthews

Case [2004] NSWCCA 112 23 April 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
145 A Crim R 445

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Matthews [2004] NSWCCA 112

HEARING DATE(S): 13/4/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sperling J at 32; Hislop J at 39

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal against sentence allowed; 3. Sentence imposed quashed, and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years to date from 27 June 2002; 4. A non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months be set, to date from 27 June 2002 and to expire on 26 December 2007; 5. Specify 26 December 2007 as the earliest date on which the applicant is entitled to be released on parole.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against severity of sentence - plea of guilty - break enter and steal - special aggravation (wounding) - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether sufficient weight given to subjective factors.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 110, 112(3)

CASES CITED: Regina v Bus NSWCCA 3 November 1995
Regina v Champion (1992) 64 A Crim R 244
Regina v Elchami NSWCCA 15 December 1995
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Regina v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
Regina v Kilmartin (1989) 41 A Crim R 22
Lauritsen v R (2000) 114 A Crim R 333
R v Letteri NSWCCA 18 March 1993
Regina v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400
Regina v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48

PARTIES :
Regina
Rhonda Christine Matthews

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60512/03

COUNSEL: D C Frearson (Crown)
C Craigie SC

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0292

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

- 10 -

60512/03

WOOD CJ at CL
SPERLING J
HISLOP J

Friday 23 April 2004

Regina v Rhonda Christine Matthews

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Coolahan, on 21 May 2003, at the Newcastle District Court. The applicant pleaded guilty on 7 November 2002, to one count under s 112(3) Crimes Act 1900, namely break enter and steal in circumstances of special aggravation (wounding). That offence attracts a maximum sentence of 25 years imprisonment. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years (taking into account an offence of possessing a prohibited drug (4.96 gms of cannabis leaf) on a Form 1.

2 A co offender, John Andrew Hawkins was sentenced in respect of an offence under s 110 Crimes Act 1900, namely break and enter and inflict grievous bodily harm. That offence also attracts a maximum of 25 years. His Honour imposed a sentence upon that offender of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.

3 The applicant…

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 [2004] NSWCCA 112
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 112
Decision Date: 23 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the appellant, Matthews, who had pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling and stealing, with the additional aggravating factor of causing wounding during the commission of the crime. The sentencing took place in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient consideration to the subjective factors pertinent to the appellant's circumstances. Matthews' legal counsel argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the mitigating aspects of his client's background and personal circumstances, which included a history of mental health issues and substance abuse. The appeal hinged on whether these factors warranted a lesser sentence than the one handed down by the original sentencing judge.

In considering these issues, the Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing for such offences, particularly focusing on the principle of proportionality and the need for an individualised assessment of the offender’s circumstances. The court noted that while the aggravating factor of causing wounding justified a more severe sentence, it was imperative to balance this with the mitigating factors presented. The court concluded that although the original sentence was on the higher end of the scale, it did not reach the level of being manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed given appropriate weight to the subjective factors, including the appellant’s background and personal circumstances, in reaching the sentence.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence. The court was satisfied that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence.

Orders