SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Matthews |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 105 |
Hearing Date: | 5 May 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 5 May 2022 |
ReasonsDate: | 10 May 2022 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | See [94] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Pleas of not guilty because of mental impairment – proof of offences – determination of mental impairment – consequential orders – referral to ACAT |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 27, 300, 308, 321, 323, 324 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 404 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68C |
Cases Cited: | R v Andison [2021] ACTSC 32 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Thomas Matthews (Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Pappas (Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hugo Law Group (Accused) | |
File Number: | SCC 288 of 2021 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:
Introduction
On 5 May 2022, Thomas Matthews (the accused), with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty by way of mental impairment to the following offences:
(a)Count 1: Arson (CC2021/5164) contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $240,000 (1500 penalty units) or both.
(b)Count 2: Act endangering life, namely using an offensive weapon in circumstances likely to endanger human life with the intention of preventing his lawful detention (SCCAN2022/3) contrary to s 27(4)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.
In accordance with s 321(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, “the prosecution agrees to the entering” of a special verdict on each count; that the accused is not guilty of the offences because of mental impairment.
Pursuant to s 321(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, the Court must consider whether verdicts of not guilty because of mental impairment are appropriate.
Approach to the Evidence and Directions
All of the evidence was admitted by consent. There was no sworn evidence or cross-examination of any witnesses. As observed by Refshauge J in R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 (R v Aleer) at [21]-[22] and myself in R v Griffiths [2020] ACTSC 51 (R v Griffiths) at [24]-[28] and R v Chemhere [2021] ACTSC 45 (R v Chemhere), the procedure for s 321(2) of the Crimes Act may be characterised as a trial by judge alone. It is therefore to be conducted in accordance with s 68C of the Supreme Court…
Continue reading R v Matthews
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Matthews [2022] ACTSC 105
- Case
- [2022] ACTSC 105
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether Matthews’ plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment was properly considered by the jury, and if not, whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting an appeal against conviction and sentence. The court was also required to consider the appropriate consequential orders under the relevant statutory provisions.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury regarding the plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The trial judge had provided clear directions and explanations to the jury about the defence of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, the onus of proof, and the standard of proof required. The court found that the jury was properly directed in relation to the defence and that there was no miscarriage of justice. Regarding the sentences imposed, the court found that they were not manifestly excessive and were within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such serious offences. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court made orders referring the question of whether Matthews was unfit to be detained in a prison to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [94]
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.